STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

ECONOMICS  AND 

PUBLIC  LAW 


EDITED  BY 

THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


VOLUME  FIFTY-FOUR 


J)ork 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON 

1913 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LIV]  [Number  3 

Whole  Number  134 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  WITHIN 
THE  PRESENT  LIMITS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


BY 

ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER,  Ph.D. 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 
LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON 

1913 


©olmufeta 
FACULTY  ,OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 


Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  LL.D.,  President.  J.  W.  Burgess,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law.  Munroe  Smith,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Roman  Law  and  Comparative  Jurisprudence.  F.  J.  Goodnow,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Administrative  Law  and  Municipal  Science.  E.  R.  A.  Seligman,  LL.D.,  Profes- 
sor of  Political  Economy  and  Finance.  H.  L.  Osgood,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History. 
Wm.  A.  Dunning,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Philosophy.  J.  B.  Moore, 
LL.D.,  Professor  of  International  Law.  F.  H.  Giddings,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Sociology.  J.  B.  Clark,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy.  J.  H. 
Robinson, Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History.  W.  M.  Sloane,L.H.D.,  Professor  of  History. 
H.  R.  Seager,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy.  H.  L.  Moore,  Ph.D., 
Professor  ot  Political  Economy.  W.  R.  Shepherd,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History. 
J.  T.  Shotwell,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History.  G.  W.  Botsford,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  History.  V.  G.  Simkhovitch,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economic  History. 
E.  T.  Devine,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Social  Economy.  Henry  Johnson,  Ph.D., 
Professor  of  History.  S.  McC.  Lindsay,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Social  Legislation. 
C.  A.  Beard,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Politics.  H.  R.  Mussey,  Ph.D.,  Associate 
Professor  of  Economics.  C.  H.  Hayes,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  History.  A.  A. 
Tenney,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  Sociology.  E.  E.  Agger,  Ph.D.,  Assistant 
Profes-sor  of  Economics.  E.  M.  Sait,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  Public  Law. 
R.  L.  Schuyler,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  History.  R.  E.  Chaddock,  Ph.D., 
•it  Professor  of  Statistics.  G.  J.  BayJes,  Ph.D.,  Associate  in  Ecclesiology. 
C.  D.  Hazen,  Ph.D.,  Lecturer  in  History. 

SCHEME  OF  INSTRUCTION 
GROUP  I.    HISTORY  AND  POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

Subject  A.  Ancient  and  Oriental  History,  nine  courses.  Subject  B.  Mediae- 
val History,  twelve  courses.  Subject  C.  Modern  European  History,  nineteen  courses. 
Subject  D.  American  History,  sixteen  courses.  Subject  E.  History  of  Thought  and 
Culture,  twenty- three  courses.  Courses  in  Church  History  given  at  the  Union  Sem- 
inary are  open  to  the  students  of  the  School  of  Political  Science. 

GROUP  II.    PUBLIC  LAW  AND  COMPARATIVE  JURISPRUDENCE. 

Subject  A.  Constitutional  Law,  eight  courses.  Subject  B.  International  Law, 
four  courses.  Subject  C.  Administrative  Law,  seven  courses.  Subject  D.  Roman 
Law  and  Comparative  Jurisprudence,  seven  courses.  Courses  in  Law  given  in  the 
Columbia  Law  School  are  open  to  the  students  of  the  School  of  Political  Science. 

GROUP  III.    ECONOMICS  AND  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 

Subject  A.  Political  Economy  and  Finance,  twenty-two  courses.  Subject  B. 
Sociology  and  Statistics,  twenty-three  courses.  Subject  C.  Social  Economy,  twelve 
courses.  Courses  in  Social  Economy  given  in  the  School  of  Philanthropy  are  open 
to  students  in  the  School  of  Political  Science. 


The  greater  number  of  the  courses  consist  of  lectures ;  a  smaller  number  take 
the  form  oJ  research  under  the  direction  of  a  professor.     The  degrees  of  A.M.  and 
Ph.D.  arc  ijiven  to  students  who  fulfil  the  requirements  prescribed.     (For  particulars, 
a  University  Bulletins  of  Information,  Faculty  of  Political  Science.)     Any 
r»on  not  a  candidate  for  a  degree  may  attend  any  of  the  courses  at  any  time  by 
P*ymci  ,-.ortional  fee.     Four  University  fellowships  of  $650  each,  two  or 

ships  of  $650— $800  each,  the  Schift  fellowship  of  $600,  the 
ellowship  of  $600,  the  Garth  fellowship  in  Political  Economy  of  $650, 
holarships  of  $150  each  are  awarded  to  applicants  who  give  evi- 
6  of  "IK  pursue    advanced    studies.     Several  prizes  of  from  £50 

1250  are  awarded      The  library  contains  over  475,000  volumes  *m)  students  hnve 
~  to  other  great  collections  in  thr  city. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN    COLONIAL    TIMES  WITHIN    THE 
PftESENT  LIMITS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE   FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LIV]  [Number  3 

Whole  Number  134 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  WITHIN 
THE  PRESENT  LIMITS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


BY 

ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER,  Ph.D. 


fflorlt 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 
LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON 

1913 


COPYRIGHT,  1913 

BY 
ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER 


TO 

MY  FATHER 


PREFACE 

IT  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  bring  to  light  a  hitherto 
neglected  phase  of  early  American  history :  the  enslavement 
of  the  Indians.  The  extensiveness  of  negro  slavery  in  com- 
parison with  Indian  slavery  has  so  emphasized  the  former 
that,  in  the  study  of  the  institution  in  general,  the  existence 
of  Indian  slavery  during  the  colonial  period  has  almost  en- 
tirely been  lost  sight  of.  In  this  discussion  it  is  shown  that 
the  enslavement  of  the  natives  was  practiced  by  the  Indians 
themselves,  the  Spanish,  the  French  and  the  English ;  yet  in 
the  case  of  no  one  of  the  European  nations  did  it  exist  as  a 
system  separate  and  distinct  from  negro  slavery.  Though 
the  holding  of  Indians  as  slaves  by  three  of  the  European 
nations  has  been  considered,  it  is  the  author's  intention  to 
lay  emphasis  chiefly  upon  the  institution  as  practiced  by 
the  English. 

The  fact  that  hitherto  no  special  attention  has  been  given 
to  the  subject  of  Indian  slavery  has  made  the  gathering  of 
material  difficult.  Many  of  the  important  sources  treating 
of  the  subject  have  never  been  published  and  are  widely 
scattered.  Much  of  even  this  material  is  vague  in  nature 
and  consequently  more  or  less  unsatisfactory.  The  rapid 
increase  in  the  number  of  negro  slaves  during  the  colonial 
period  resulted  in  the  general  use  of  such  terms  as  "  slaves," 
"  negroes  and  other  slaves  "  and  "  negroes,"  without  speci- 
fication of  Indian  slaves  as  such.  This  is  true  particularly 
of  the  colonial  laws,  even  in  the  case  of  those  colonies  where 
Indian  slavery  existed  to  the  greatest  extent. 

The  author  desires  to  express  his  indebtedness  to  Mrs. 
259]  7 


8  PREFACE  [260 

N.  M.  Surrey  for  her  generous  permission  to  use  manuscript 
material  collected  in  the  southern  states;  to  the  librarians 
and  their  assistants  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  the  Pennsylvania  Histori- 
cal Society,  and  the  Maryland  Historical  Society,  for  their 
many  kindnesses;  and  to  Professor  Herbert  L.  Osgood,  of 
Columbia  University,  for  his  advice  and  for  the  use  of  ex- 
tracts from  the  records  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts.  The  author's  most  sincere 
thanks  are  due  to  Professor  William  R.  Shepherd,  of 
Columbia  University,  under  whose  guidance  this  work  has 
been  carried  on.  His  suggestions  and  criticisms  have  been 
invaluable,  and  he  has  given  unsparingly  of  his  time  in 
reading  both  manuscript  and  proof. 

ALMON  W.  LAUBER. 
NEW  YORK  CITY,  MARCH  15,  1913. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PART  I 
INDIAN  SLAVERY  AMONG  THE  INDIANS,  THE 


ERRATA. 

Page  34,  line  6,  comma  after  "  expedition  "  should  be  omitted. 
Page  72,  foot-note  3,  "  Courtnay  "  should  read  "  Courtenay." 
Page  86,  line  12,  period  should  be  inserted  after  "colonies." 
Page  152,  foot-note  2,  "towns"  should  read  "town." 
Page  182,  line  28,  "  iVathan  "  should  read  "  Nathaniel." 
Page  213,  line  14,  "act"  should  read  "  law." 

Page  217,  foot-note  2,  "293"  should  read   "193";   "  Arient "  should  read 
Arent." 

Page  232,  line  10,  "  income  "  should  read  "  property." 
Page  235,  line  i,  "  2£"  should  read  "  £2." 
Page  238,  line  2,  "  chief  "  should  read  "  large." 
Page  287,  line  7,  "Corannine"  should  read  "Coranine." 


Stirring  up  tribes  against  one  another 34 

Employment  of  Indian  slaves 35~39 

Domestic  servants 35~3" 

Mistresses 36 

Agricultural  laborers 3^ 

Miners 37 

Hunters •   •        •    •      37 

Fishermen 37 

Objects  of  barter  and  trade 38 

261]  9 


8  PREFACE  [260 

N.  M.  Surrey  for  her  generous  permission  to  use  manuscript 
material  collected  in  the  southern  states;  to  the  librarians 
and  their  assistants  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  the  Pennsylvania  Histori- 
cal Society,  and  the  Maryland  Historical  Society,  for  their 
many  kindnesses;  and  to  Professor  Herbert  L.  Osgood,  of 
Columbia  University,  for  his  advice  and  for  the  use  of  ex- 
tracts from  the  records  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts.  The  author's  most  sincere 
thanks  are  due  to  Professor  William  R  qv.^^^  ~f 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PART  I 

INDIAN  SLAVERY  AMONG  THE  INDIANS,  THE 
SPANIARDS  AND  THE  FRENCH 

CHAPTER  I 
ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES 

PAGB 

Introductory  statement 25 

Indian  slavery  among  the  Indians  practically  universal 25 

More  extensively  used  among  some  tribes  than  others 25 

No  entire  tribes  held  in  subjection 25 

Slavery  on  the  Great  Plains  and  Atlantic  Slope  25 

Different  from  that  in  west 25 

Not  slavery  in  the  true  sense  in  many  cases 25 

"  Slavery  "  confounded  with  "prisoner "  and  "adoption" 25 

Slavery  to  be  interpreted  in  the  broadest  sense 26 

Processes  of  enslavement 26-35 

For  crime 26 

Indians  staked  themselves  when  gambling 26 

Indians  sold  children  in  time  of  famine 26 

Barter  with  other  tribes 27-28 

Warfare 29~35 

Coming  of  Europeans  affected  slavery 33~35 

Stirring  up  tribes  against  one  another 34 

Employment  of  Indian  slaves 35~39 

Domestic  servants 35~36 

Mistresses 36 

Agricultural  laborers 36 

Miners 37 

Hunters .  .  .  .  37 

Fishermen 37 

Objects  of  barter  and  trade 38 

261]  9 


IO 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [262 


PAGE 

Treatment  of  slaves 39-4° 

Depended  upon  individual  owners     , 39 

A  distinct  class  in  west 39 

A  part  of  family  or  tribe  in  east 39 

Adoption 39 

Treatment  generally  kind 39 

Instances  of  cruel  treatment 40 

Precautions  to  prevent  escape 4° 

Women  of  tribe  have  power  to  spare  or  kill 40 

Punishment  by  death     .    , 41 

Distinction  between  owner  and  slave  not  so  clear  as  between  the  Euro- 
pean and  his  slave .      41 

Privileges  and  favors 4J-12 

Manumission 43~45 

Marriage  into  the  tribe 43 

Birth 43 

Death  of  owner 43 

Adoption 43~44 

Peace  with  tribe  to  which  slave  belonged 44 

Exchange 44 

Messenger  in  formal  declaration  of  war 44 

CHAPTER  II 

ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS 

Idea  of  slavery 48 

Practiced  by  Indians 48 

Captives  of  Spanish  wars  enslaved 48 

Sanctioned  by  Church  and  State 48 

Public  opinion 48 

Enslavement  of  Indians  would  Christianize  them 49 

Processes  of  enslavement 49~55 

War 49 

Spanish  explorers 49~51> 

Employment  of  slaves 55 

Guides 55 

Interpreters 55 

Camp  laborers 55 

Burden  bearers 55 

Cooks 55 

Mistresses 55 

Treatment 55~57 

Depended  upon  individual  owners 55 


263]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  H 

PAGE 

Kindness  to  enslave  instead  of  to  kill 56 

Instances  of  kindness 56-57 

Manumission 57 

Act  of  individual  owners 57 

Law  of  1543  to  er.d  slavery  in  Spanish  America 57 

Law  not  successful .  ....  58 

Missions  and  "presidios" 59-6i 

Life  of  Indians  was  practical  slavery 6 1 

CHAPTER  III 
ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH 

Legality 63-65 

Never  authorized  by  law  in  early  colonial  period 63 

Home  government  not  interested 63 

Indirect  royal  action  in  eighteenth  century 63 

Authorized  by  colonial  authorities 63 

Action  of  Company  of  the  Indies,  1720 64 

Recognition  by  Governor-General  Hocquart,  1736 64 

Action  of  royal  council,  1745 64 

Public  opinion  .  . 65 

Not  concerned  with  the  subject ....  65 

Knowledge  of  slavery  vague 65 

Countenanced  slavery  as  an  institution 65 

No  leader  like  Las  Casas  to  create  sentiment  against  slavery 65 

Attitude  of  the  missionaries ....  65-67 

Processes  of  enslavement 67 

War 67-73 

Natchez  War , 67-68 

Minor  wars 69 

With  the  Fox  Indians 69 

With  the  Chickasaw 69 

Urging  allies  to  war  and  taking  captives 69-70 

Requiring  conquered  tribes  to  go  to  war  and  take  captives 7O-71 

Kidnapping 7^73 

Trade 73-79 

Indian  slaves  an  object  of  trade 74 

Part  played  by  "  coureurs  de  bois  " 75~77 

Attempt  to  check  action  of  "  coureurs  de  bois  " 77 

Opposition  to  it  not  strong 78 

Attitude  of  Jesuits 78-79 

Gifts:  made  to  the  explorers 79-8i 

Birth :  throughout  history  children  of  slaves  generally  regarded  as  slaves  .  .       82 


I2  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [264 

PAGE 

Employment  of  slaves 82-86 

Among  the  explorers 

Guides 82 

Interpreters 82 

Among  the  colonists 83-86 

Interpreters 83 

Domestic  servants 83 

Mistresses 83 

Agricultural  laborers 83-84 

Laborers  on  fortifications 84 

Menial  camp  laborers 84 

Objects  of  bribe  to  win  friendship  of  tribes 84-86 

Recognition  as  property 86 

Tax  law  of  1728 86 

Treatment  of  slaves 86-90 

Slavery  was  of  mild  nature 86 

Social  distinction  between  slave  and  owner  was  less  marked  than  in  case 

of  English  and  Indian  slaves 87 

Instance  of  "  coureurs  de  bois  " 87 

Religious  training 87-88 

Relation  to  ceremonies  and  sacraments  of  the  Church 88-90 

Extent  of  Indian  slavery 90-94 

In  Louisiana 90-91 

In  Natchitoches 91 

In  north  Mississippi  Valley 92 

In  Detroit 92-93 

Manumission 93~95 

Verbal  manumission 94 

Law  of  1735  required  manumission  by  notarial  deed 94 

Law  of  1721  freed  children  of  slave  mothers  and  free  fathers 95 

Causes  of  end  of  Indian  s'avery 96-102 

Indians  not  adapted  to  slavery     .    .        96 

Decrease  in  number  of  Indians 96 

Removal  of  tribes  from  neighborhood  of  whites 96 

Law  of  1693  forbade  trade  in  Indians 96 

Law  of  1736  repeated  the  order  .    .        .    .    .    .    , 97 

General  unsatisfactoriness  of  the  institution 97-99 

Growth  of  indenture  system 99 

Growth  of  negro  slavery ICO-IO2 


265] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PART  II 
THE  INSTITUTION  AS  PRACTICED  BY  THE   ENGLISH 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES 

PAGE 

Exact  number  in  any  colony  unknown  ................     105 

Statistics  rare  or  lacking  altogether     ................     105 

Comparative  numbers  in  different  colonies    ............     105-117 

Largest  number  in  South         ........        .....    ...     105-108 

Carolinas  possessed  most  ....................     106 

Carolinas  exported  many    ...................     106 

Fewer  Indian  slaves  than  negroes  ...........    .....     108 

Number  in  Georgia  very  small    .................     108 

The  same  true  of  Virginia    ..................     108 

New  England  possessed  many        ...............     109-112 

Massachusetts  enslaved  captives  taken  in  war  .........     109-110 

The  Pequot  War   ......................     109 

King  Philip's  War  .......  ...........     109 

Slaves  in  various  towns    ...................     109 

Rhode  Island  possessed  some  ..................     no 

Connecticut  and  New  Haven  had  but  few    ..........     iio-lli 

New  Hampshire  had  very  few    .................     Hi 

The  middle  group  of  colonies  had  a  smaller  number  than  New  England  .     112 
New  York  had  more  than  other  colonies    .............     112 

None  taken  in  war    .....................     113 

Some  imported  from  the  Carolinas  and  the  Spanish  Islands    ....     114 

Pennsylvania  had  few   .....................     115 

Some  imported  .......................     115 

New  Jersey  had  very  few    ...................     116 

Maryland  probably  possessed  the  smallest  number    .........     117 

CHAPTER  V 
PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

Indian  wars  generally  confined  to  South    ...............     118 

Wars  in  Virginia    ........................     119 

War  with  Opechancanough      ..................     119 

Bacon's  rebellion  .......................     119 

Wars  in  Carolina   ......................     119-122 

War  with  the  Kussoe    .....................     119 


I4  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [266 

PAGE 

Expeditions  against  Spanish  Indians  after  1701 119-121 

In   1702 119 

In  1704      120 

In  1708 120 

In  1727 121 

Tuscarora  War 121-122 

Barnwell's  expedition  122 

Moore's  expedition 122 

Wars  in  New  England 122-126 

Pequot  War 123 

The  Mistick  Fight 123 

The  Swamp  Fight 123 

Captives  retained  in  colonies 123-124 

Captives  exported 124 

King  Philip's  War 124-130 

Captives  exported 125 

By  Massachusetts 126 

Captives  retained  in  colonies 127 

Wives  and  children  of  captives  enslaved 127 

Children  of  Indians  who  surrendered  enslaved  for  short  period  ...     128 
Rhode   Island,   New   Hampshire   and    Connecticut    transported  no 

captives 128 

Rhode  Island  retained  captives  in  colony .     129 

Captives  were  involuntary  indentured  servants  rather  than  slaves  .     130 

Connecticut  enslaved  captives 130 

Colonial  action  regarding  enslavement  of  Indians 130-152 

Virginia ^o 

Action  of  1668 131 

Action  during  and  after  Bacon's  rebellion 131-132 

Maryland 132-133 

Intention  in  1652 132 

North  Carolina 13^-134 

Action  during  Tuscarora  War 133 

South  Carolina 134-137 

Action  during  war  with  the  Kussoe 134 

Action  during  war  with  the  Stono 134 

Action  during  wars  of  early  eighteenth  century 135 

Assembly  provided  committee  to  dispose  of  captives 135 

Act  of  1703  gave  anyone  a  right  to  purchase  slaves 135 

Acts  of  1707  and   1708  gave  commanding  officers  of  expeditions  the 

right  to  purchase  slaves 136 

Act  of  1715  provided  that  public  receiver  should  dispose  of  captives.     136 
Action  during  war  with  the  Cherokee 136 


267]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  15 

PAGE 

New  England 137~1S2 

Prior  to  King  Philip's  War 137-138 

Disposal  of  captives  by  general  court :  Massachusetts     ......     137 

Disposal  of  captives  by  council  of  war  :  Plymouth 137 

Act  of  United  Colonies  of  New  Ei.gland 138 

Articles  of  Confederation,  1643 138 

Action  in   1645 •    •     l& 

During  King  Philip's  War IS8-^2 

Captives  sold  outright  to  obtain  money  for  treasury 1 38-139 

Captives  sold  to  pay  debts  to  individuals I39-I4° 

Captives  granted  directly  to  captors 14 l 

Military  commanders  authorized  to  sell  captives 142 

Attitude  toward  Praying  Indians 143 

Colonial  governments  realized  danger  of  retaining  enslaved  captives 

in  colonies 144 

Massachusetts  act  of  1676 144 

Massachusetts  act  of  1677 *45 

Plymouth  act  of  1678 146 

Government  action  in  capture  and  sale  of  Indians  not  always  above 

suspicion 146 

Plymouth  act  of  1646 146 

Seizure  and  sale  of  Dartmouth  Indians 146-147 

Event  at  Cocheco 147 

Disposal  of  Indians  after  the  war 148 

Massachusetts 149 

Connecticut 149-150 

Rhode  Island 150-152 

CHAPTER  VI 

PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  :  KIDNAPPING 

Action  of  Cabot,  Frobisher,  Weymouth,  Harlow,  Hunt 154-159 

Evidence  of  kidnapping  in  southern  colonies  meagre 159 

Event  of  1685  at  Cape  Fear,  North  Carolina 159-160 

Action  of  Laughton,  1676 160-161 

Kidnapping  in  Pennsylvania 162 

Kidnapped  Indians  in  New  York  :  Spanish  Indians 162-163 

Kidnapped  Spanish  Indians  in  other  colonies 164 

Legislative  action  against  kidnapping     .    .        165-167 

Nature  of  legislation 165 

Purpose  of  legislation 165 

Acts  of 

Virginia,  1657    .    .    . 166 


!6  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [268 

PAGE 

Maryland,  1672,  1692,  1705 166 

Massachusetts,  1641 , 166 

New  Jersey,  1675 l67 

New  Hampshire,  1679 .    .    .  167 

CHAPTER  VII 

PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  :  TRADE 

Purchase  of  Indians  from  tribes  closely  connected  with  fur  trade 168 

Work  of  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  " 168 

Captives  obtained  by  South  Carolina  traders  from  the  Westo,  Savannah 

and  other  tribes 169-171 

French  warn  Indians  against  purpose  of  English 171 

Action  of  English  west  of  Mississippi  river 172 

Action  of  English  and  French  among  Chickasaw  and  Choctaw 172 

Two-fold  policy  of  proprietors  of  Carolina I73~I75 

Sanctioned  enslavement  of  Indians  for  their  own  benefit 174 

Opposed  enslavement  of  Indians  by  colonial  officials 174 

Directions  to  grand  council  ...        175 

Appointment  of  commission  to  prevent  trade  in  Indians 175 

Directions  to  governors 175 

Inquiries  from  council  and  individuals 176 

Declare  traders'  reasons  for  traffic  in  Indians  unsound 177 

Matter  of  traffic  in  Indians  given  to  parliament 178 

Attitude  of  Governor  John  Archdale 178 

Action  of  Governor  James  Moore 179 

South  Carolina  assembly  deals  with  trade  in  Indians,  1707 180 

Appointed  board  of  commissioners 180 

Duties  of  board 180 

Oath  of  members 180 

Directions  to  traders 181-182 

Purpose  of  assembly 182 

Result  of  action  of  assembly 183 

Attempts  by  board  to  check  traffic  in  Indians 183 

Memorial  of  governor,  1720 184 

Failure  of  authorities  to  enforce  decrees 184-185 

Trade  in  Indians  in  Virginia 185-187 

Traffic  begun  early 185 

Attitude  of  assembly 185-186 

Number  of  slaves  obtained  by  trade  never  so  extensive  as  in  Carolina  .     187 

Trade  in  Indians  in  New  England .  '.    .     187 

No  direct  traffic  in  slaves  with  tribes 187 

Obtained  from  other  colonies 187 


269]  7 ABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Ij 

PACK 

Colonial  legislation  forbidding  traffic  in  Indian  slaves 188-195 

Massachusetts 188 

New  Haven 189 

Connecticut 189-190 

Rhode  Island 191-192 

New  Hampshire 192-193 

New  York 193 

Pennsylvania I93~I95 

CHAPTER  VIII 
OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT 

Abuse  of  indenture  or  apprenticeship 196-201 

Indians  indentured  to  whites  by  their  tribe 196 

Indians  sold  to  whites  by  their  families 196 

Indians  offered  as  security  for  loans 196 

Indians  sell  themselves  to  whites  for  protection 196 

Whites  enslave  such  Indians  by  refusing  to  give  them  up 196-201 

Instance  in  North  Carolina,  1660 197 

Cause  of  Tuscarora  War 197 

Virginia  legislation  shows  custom  followed  there 197-198 

Massachusetts  legislation  aiming  to  prevent  such  action 198-199 

Rhode  Island  legislation  to  prevent  abuse  of  apprenticeship    .    .    .     199-200 

Abuses  in  New  York 200-201 

Decree  of  Governor  Clinton  to  free  Indians  wrongly  enslaved    ....     200 

Custom  still  in  existence  at  late  date,  1755 •    •    2O1 

Punishment  for  violation  of  law  and  order 201-207 

Enslavement  as  punishment  general  throughout  colonies 201 

Enslavement  decreed  as  punishment  in  two  ways 201 

By  law  specifying  enslavement  as  punishment  for  certain  crimes    ...    201 

By  a  court  decreeing  enslavement  as  punishment  for  crimes  committed.     201 

Carolina  court  decrees  illustrating  sentences  for  crimes  committed  .    201-202 

Virginia  legislation  illustrating  specified  punishment  for  specified  crimes  .     202 

Massachusetts  legislation 203 

Massachusetts  court  decrees    ....        203 

Plymouth  court  decrees 203-205 

Rhode  Island  legislation 205 

Rhode  Island  court  decisions  .    .    , 205-206 

Connecticut  legislation 206 

Connecticut  court  action 206 

Action  of  the  United  Colonies 206-207 

Birth 207-210 

In  law  children  of  slave  mothers  generally  considered  slaves 207 


!g  TABLE  OP  CONTENTS  [270 

PAGE 

Colonial  laws  imposing  status  of  slavery  on  children  of  slave  mothers  .  207-209 

South  Carolina • 207-208 

Virginia 208 

Maryland  act  of  1663  an  exception 208 

Maryland  act  of  1692  following  general  custom  in  other  colonies  .    .    .     209 

New  York 209 

Colonies  that  did  not  pass   laws  regarding  the  matter  followed  general 

custom 209 

Massachusetts 209 

Connecticut 209 

Cases  in  colonial  courts  recognizing  status  of  slavery  by  birth 210 

CHAPTER  IX 
PROPERTY  RELATIONS 

Indians  in  servitude  at  first  held  in  status  servitude 211 

Status  servitude  followed  by  status  slavery 211 

Status  servitude  and  status  slavery  existing  together 21 1 

Indian  slavery  first  recognized  in  customary  law 212 

Incidents  of  the  change 212-213 

Indian  slavery  recognized  in  statute  law         213-515 

Instance  of  South  Carolina 213 

Colonial  acts  from  the  standpoint  of  English  law  ...........     214 

Had  no  legal  sanction      214 

Based  on  law  of  nations    .    .        214 

England  indifferent  to  such  acts 214-215 

Acts  therefore  legal  because  not  declared  illegal 215 

Incidents  of  status  servitude  continued  into  status  slavery 215-241 

Conception  of  property  right 215-241 

Indian  slaves  bought  and  sold 216 

Newspaper  advertisements  of  Indian  slaves  for  sale 216 

Indian  slaves  disposed  of  by  will 216 

Indian  slaves  in  inventories 217 

Tendency  of  Indian  slaves  to  run  away 217-218 

Newspaper  advertisements  for  runaway  Indian  slaves 218-219 

Fugitive  slave  laws 220-221 

Persons  forbidden  to  aid  runaways 220 

Punishment  for  rendering  such  aids 221 

Inducements  to  free  Indians  to  return  runaways 221 

Intercolonial  agreements  concerning  return  of  runaways 222-224 

Articles  of  federation  of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  England    .    .    .    222 
Treaty  of  United  Colonies  of  New  England  and  New  Netherland  .    .    223 

Incident  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 224 

Incident  of  North  Carolina  and  Virginia 225 


271] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Massachusetts  rewards  master  for  Indian  slave  taken  from  him  ....     225 

Courts  settle  disputes  regarding  ownership  of  Indian  slaves    .....     225 

Taxation  of  Indian  slaves    ...................    226 

South  Carolina  acts  ...................     226-227 

North  Carolina  acts  .............    ........     227 

Virginia  acts  ..................    ....    227-230 

Massachusetts  acts    ...................     230-232 

New  York  acts  .................    •   "    .    .    .         232 

Acts  of  the  town  of  Rye,  New  York      ..........   .     232-233 

Import  duties  on  Indian  slaves    ...............    233-240 

Protective  duties   ....................    234-237 

South  Carolina  acts  ....    ...............    234 

Virginia  acts  .......................    235 

Rhode  Island  act  ....................     235 

New  Hampshire  act    .............    ......     236 

Pennsylvania  act   .....................    236 

New  Jersey  acts    ...................    236-237 

Duties  for  revenue     ..................    237-240 

New  York  acts  ....................     238-240 

Export  duties  on  Indian  slaves    ...............    240-241 

South  Carolina  act    ...................    240-241 

CHAPTER  X 

METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT 

Uses  of  Indian  slaves  similar  throughout  colonies     .........     242-249 

Hunters  ............................     242 

Fishermen  ...........................     242 

Guides    ............................    242 

Domestic  servants  ......................     243-244 

Agricultural  laborers     ......................     244 

Craftsmen  ........................    245 

Rented  like  other  chattels    ....................     245 

Laborers  in  camp  and  field  ...    ...............    2415—247 

Soldiers    ..........................    247-249 

CEIAPTER  XI 
TREATMENT 

Treatment  the  same  as  that  accorded  negroes  .............     250 

Harsh  treatment  not  general    ....................     250 

Clothing  ...........................     251-252 

Newspaper  evidence     ....................     251-252 


20  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [272 

?AGB 

Marriage  of  whites  with  Indian  slaves 252 

Forbidden  by  the  following  colonies  : 

North  Carolina,  1715 253 

Maryland,  1692 253 

Massachusetts,  1692 253 

Regulation  of  Indian  slaves 253-254 

Each  colony  settled  this  matter  for  itself 253 

Indian  slaves  included  by  implication  in  all  colonial  acts  relating  to  slaves, 

if  not  specified 253 

Right  to  give  evidence  in  court 254-255 

Could  not  testify  in  trial  of  a  white  person 254 

South  Carolina 254 

North  Carolina 254 

Virginia 255 

Maryland 255 

New  York 255 

Protection  of  slaves' and  owners' rights  in  court 255-259 

The  right  to  life 255 

New  Hampshire  act  of  1708 255 

Trial  of  slaves  similar  to  that  of  freemen 255 

Chance  of  slave  obtaining  his  rights  in  court 256 

Virginia,  1692,  provided  special  courts  for  trial  of  slaves  .  .  ....     256 

Massachusetts  provision  of  1647 256-257 

New  Jersey  act  of  1713    .    .    , 257 

New  York  act  of  1712 257 

Tendency  of  slave  owners  to  conceal  crimes  committed  by  slaves      .    .         258 

Remuneration  of  master  if  slave  was  executed  . 258-259 

Maryland  act  of  1717 259 

Restrictions 259-260 

Punishments 260-264 

Death 261 

Branding 261 

Whipping 262-263 

Mutilation 263-264 

Religious  life 264 

Provisions  of  home  government  regarding  religious  instructions  of  slaves 

in  general 265 

Indifference  of  slave  owners     .  265 

Attitude  of  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 

in  Foreign  Parts  265 

Reports  of  the  missionaries  to  the  Society 266-268 

Attitude  of  the  Society 268 

Effect  upon  the  colonists 268-275 


273]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  21 

PAGE 

Opinions  of  English  authorities   regarding  idea  that  baptism  of  slaves 

confers  freedom  upon  them 275 

Manumission 275-282 

Action  of  individual  owners 276 

Purchase  of  freedom  by  slaves 276-277 

Proof  of  freedom  in  court 277 

Government  action 277-280 

Virginia 278 

North  Carolina 278 

Massachusetts 279 

Plymouth 279-280 

Regulations  regarding  life  of  manumitted  slaves 280-282 

CHAPTER  XII 
THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY 

Small  number  of  Indians  in  English  territory 283 

Decrease  in  number  of  Indians 283 

Decreased  birth  rate 285 

Susceptibility  to  diseases  of  whites 285-286 

Intestine  wars 286 

Intermingling  of  Indian  and  negro  slaves 287 

Physical  and  mental  unfitness  of  Indians  for  slave  labor 287-288 

Indian  slave  labor  not  satisfactory 288-289 

Indian  slaves  given  to  running  away 289 

Indian  slaves  concerned  in  conspiracies  and  uprisings 289-290 

Colonial  legislation  declaring  Indian  slaves  undesirable 290-292 

Indians  as  hired  servants 292-294 

Indians  as  indentured  servants 295 

White  indentured  servants 295-297 

Negro  slavery 297-298 

Comparative  values  of  Indian  and  negro  slaves 298-302 

Opposition  to  Indian  slavery  and  contrasted  opinion 303-311 

Legislation 311-319 

Virginia 3I2-3'5 

South  Carolina 3I5~3I6 

Rhode  Island 316-319 

New  York 316-319 

Bibliography 32°-339 

Index 341-352 


PART  I 

INDIAN    SLAVERY    AMONG   THE    INDIANS, 
THE  SPANIARDS  AND  THE  FRENCH 


CHAPTER  I 
ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES 

THE  discussion  of  the  use  of  Indians  as  slaves  by  the 
aborigines  within  the  present  limits  of  the  United  States, 
both  before  and  after  the  coming  of  the  Europeans,  may 
be  prefaced  by  the  statement  that  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  some  form  was  practically  universal.  Certain  tribes  held 
slaves  more  generally  than  others,  and  various  tribes  were 
more  subject  to  enslavement  than  others,  according  to  their 
relative  strength  and  weakness.1  Yet  nowhere  in  the  terri- 
tory under  discussion  did  slavery  exist  on  such  an  extensive 
scale  that  some  tribes  held  others  in  a  state  of  subjection 
and  demanded  servile  labor  from  them. 

Slavery  among  the  tribes  of  the  Great  Plains  and  the 
Atlantic  Slope  was  different  in  nature  from  that  in  the 
northwest.  Frequent  mention  of  such  slavery  is 
found,  but  it  has  been  shown  that  the  term  "  slave " 
was  often  used  by  the  early  Spanish  and  French  writers  in 
an  erroneous  sense  as  synonymous  with  "prisoner."  2  The 
institution  of  adoption  so  largely  used  by  the  American 
Indians,  and  incident  to  intertribal  warfare  and  the  conse- 
quent depletion  of  the  tribal  numbers,  has  also  been  con- 
fused by  the  writers  with  the  institution  of  slavery.8 

1  In  Mexico,  a  certain  community  of  Indians  was  named  "  Escl  vos  " 
by  the  Spaniards,  because  the  Aztec  rulers  had  drawn  so  largely  upon 
them  for  slaves.  Gage,  A  New  Survey  of  the  West  Indies,  third 
edition,  ii,  p.  414. 

1  Hodge,  Handbook  of  American  Indians  north  of  Mexico,  Bureau 
of  American  Ethnology,  Bulletin  30,  pt.  ii,  p.  599. 

3  Ibid. 

277]  25 


26  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [278 

Though  slavery,  in  the  strictest  sense,  was  not  general  in 
the  territory  above  mentioned,  yet  some  form  of  the  institu- 
tion is  recorded  as  having  existed  among  the  leading  tribes. 
In  the  discussion  which  follows,  the  term  "  slave  "  must, 
then,  be  considered  in  its  broadest  sense.  A  prisoner  held 
by  his  captor  as  an  inferior  and  forced  to  labor  for  him,  or 
sold  into  servitude  or  freedom  for  the  financial  benefit  of  his 
captor,  will  be  considered  a  slave  when  thus  treated  by  the 
Indians,  as  he  will  be  so  considered  in  a  later  discussion 
when  thus  treated  by  the  whites. 

Among  the  Aztec  Indians  of  Mexico  outcasts  and  crimi- 
nals of  the  tribe  were  enslaved,1  and  the  usage  appears  to 
have  been  followed,  to  a  very  slight  extent,  by  Indians  in  the 
area  of  the  French  and  English  colonies  to  the  northward.2 

Individual  instances  of  slavery  proceeded  from  other 
causes.  The  Indians  were  inveterate  gamblers,  and  when 
nothing  else  was  left,  both  men  and  women  not  infrequently 
staked  themselves  to  serve  as  slaves  in  case  of  loss.  Such 
slavery  was  sometimes  for  life,  and  sometimes  for  such 
short  periods  of  time  as  a  year  or  two.3  In  case  of  famine, 
the  Indians  even  sold  their  children  to  obtain  food.4 

The  slaves  possessed  by  a  given  Indian  tribe  were  oftener 

1  Fiske,  The  Discovery  of  America,  i,  p.   121 ;  Prescott,  History  of 
the  Conquest  of  Mexico,  twenty-second  edition,  i,  pp.  35,  41.     See  also 
Clavigero,  The  History  of  Mexico  (translated  by  Cullen),  i,  p.  157,  ii, 
p.  154;  Prescott,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  63,  68,  147,  155,  168,  285;  ii,  pp.  82,  137. 

2  See  Neill,  History  of  Minnesota,  p.  85,  for  the  case  of  an  Indian  who 
wanted   to   enslave   his   daughter's   murderer.     Brickell,    The   Natural 
History  of  North  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  355,  tells  of  Indians  enslaving  one 
another  for  theft  until  reparation  was  made. 

1  The  Jesuit  Relations  and  Allied  Documents,  edited  by  Reuben  Gold 
Thwaites,  xvi,  pp.  199,  201.  The  same  custom  was  followed  by  the 
Indians  in  later  periods.  See  Parker,  A  Journey  Beyond  the  Rocky 
Mountains  (1835),  p.  53. 

*  Jesuit  Relations,  xv,  p.  157. 


279]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    2J 

obtained  through  barter  with  other  tribes.  This  intertribal 
traffic,  though  probably  not  common,  was  evidently  far- 
reaching.1  Owing  to  the  wandering  habits  of  the  Indians 
and  their  custom  of  bartering  goods  with  other  tribes, 
articles  of  copper  became  distributed  throughout  the  North- 
west, especially  in  Wisconsin.  The  Illinois  Indians  pos- 
sessed slaves  who  came  from  the  sea  coast,  probably 
Florida.2  The  Illinois  also  bartered  their  slaves  with  the 
Ottawa  for  guns,  powder,  kettles  and  knives,3  and  with  the 
Iroquois  to  obtain  peace.4  Marquette  found  (1673)  among 
the  Arkansas  Indians,  knives,  beads  and  hatchets  which  had 
been  obtained  partly  from  the  Illinois  and  partly  from  the 
Indians  farther  to  the  east.5  The  Jesuit,  Grelon,  relates 
that  in  Chinese  Tartary  he  met  a  Huron  woman  whom  he 
had  known  in  America.6 

The  transition  from  the  method  of  obtaining  slaves  by 
actual  warfare  and  barter  to  that  of  mere  slave  raids  was 
an  easy  one.  The  desire  to  gain  the  reputation  of  a  skill- 
ful hunter,  and,  still  more,  of  a  brave  warrior,  and  thus  to 
win  the  esteem  and  regard  of  his  tribesmen,  was  inherent 
among  the  natives.  To  be  a  brave  warrior  was  to  be  truly 
a  man.  So  eager  was  the  Indian  to  acquire  the  name  of 
"  brave  "  that  he  unhesitatingly  underwent  any  hardships 

1  Margry,  D /convert fs,  etc.,  i,  p.  470;  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Histor- 
ical Society  Collections,  xxiv,  p.  182. 

2  Thwaites,   Father  Marquette,  p.   85.     The  spelling  of  the   Indian 
names  in  this   dissertation  is  that  used  by  Hodge  in  Handbook   of 
American  Indians  north  of  Mexico. 

8  Hennepin,  A  New  Discovery  of  a  Vast  Country  in  America,  edited 
by  Reuben  Gold  Thwaites,  p.  631. 

4  French,  Historical  Collections  of  Louisiana,  pt.  i,  p.  56 ;  Margry,  op. 
cit.,  i,  p.  527. 

5  Shea,  Discovery  and  Exploration   of  the  Mississippi   Valley,   etc., 
pp.  Ivi,  32;  Thwaites,  Father  Marquette,  p.  81. 

6  Jesuit  Relations,  lix,  p.  309. 


2g  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [280 

to  obtain  slaves  or  scalps  as  a  proof  of  his  qualifications 
for  the  title.1  This  means  of  obtaining  slaves  was  used 
by  the  stronger  tribes  like  the  Illinois  and  the  Iroquois.2 

The  slaves  bartered  by  the  Illinois  were  generally  taken 
in  the  territory  beyond  the  Mississippi.3  This  the  Illinois 
were  better  able  to  do  after  the  coming  of  the  whites,  as 
they  were  provided  with  guns,  while  the  Indians  to  the  west- 
ward had  no  weapons  of  the  sort.  One  of  the  chief  sources 
from  which  these  slaves  was  obtained  was  the  Pawnee 
nation.  In  1719,  Du  Tisne  wrote  to  Bienville,  the  com- 
mandant at  New  Orleans,  that  the  Pawnee  were  afraid  of 
him  when  he  arrived  among  them,  as  their  neighbors,  the 
Osage,  had  made  them  believe  that  his  intention  was  to 
entrap  and  enslave  them.4 

The  same  practice  was  followed  by  the  other  northern 
tribes.  La  Jeune,  in  1632,  found  slaves  among  the  Algon- 
quin. The  Indians  of  the  Great  Lakes  region  had  a  young 
Esquimaux  as  a  slave  in  1646.*  Tonti  found  Iroquois  slaves 
among  the  Huron  and  Ottawa.6  The  Dutch  navigator, 

1  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixvii,  p.  171.  In  the  south,  the  term  "slave"  was 
used  by  the  Indians,  not  only  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  commonly 
used,  but  as  applied  to  dogs,  cats,  tame  and  domestic  animals,  and  to 
captive  birds.  "  So  when  an  Indian  tells  you  that  he  has  a  slave  for 
you,  it  may,  in  general  terms  as  they  use,  be  a  young  eagle,  a  dog,  or 
any  other  thing  of  that  nature,  which  is  obsequiously  to  depend  upon 
the  master  for  its  substance."  Lawson,  The  History  of  North  Caro- 
lina, containing  the  exact  description  and  natural  history  of  that 
country,  p.  327. 

s  In  1694,  the  Illinois  informed  Tonti  that  during  the  preceding  seven 
years  they  had  killed  and  taken  prisoners  334  men  and  boys  and  in 
women  and  girls.  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iv,  p.  5. 

*  Hennepin,  A  New  Discovery,  etc.,  ii,  p.  631 ;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p. 
98 ;  Jesuit  Relations,  liv,  p.  191 ;  lix,  p.  127. 

4  Chappell,  A  History  of  the  Missouri  River,  p.  25. 
6  Jesuit  Relations,  xxx,  p.  133. 

*  French,  Historical  Collections  of  Louisiana,  pt.  i,  p.  69. 


]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    29 

Hendrickson,  in  1616,  found  the  Indians  of  the  Schuylkill 
River  country  holding  Indian  slaves.1 

Of  all  the  northern  Indians,  the  Iroquois  were  by  far  the 
most  powerful.  They  were  the  enemies,  in  the  time  of  the 
early  French  explorations  and  settlements,  of  the  Huron 
and  the  Illinois,  and  from  these  tribes  they  took  many  cap- 
tives whom  they  enslaved.  The  statement  has  been  made 
that  no  personal  slavery  ever  existed  among  the  Iroquois — 
that  their  captives  were  either  killed  or  adopted  as  a  part  of 
the  nation.2  Quite  the  contrary  is  true.  They  held  both 
Indians  and  whites  in  personal  slavery.  They  brought  back 
from  the  Ohio  country  bands  of  captives,  sometimes  num- 
bering three  or  four  hundred.3  They  preyed  upon  the 
Shawnee  and  carried  them  off  into  slavery.4  They  cap- 
tured and  enslaved  the  Miami  for  whose  redemption  they 
were  presented  with  quantities  of  beaver  skin.  These  they 
received  but  failed  to  free  the  slaves.5  They  brought  home 
slaves  from  Maryland  and  the  south,6  and  from  the  land 
of  the  "Chat"7  (the  Erie).  It  was  the  Iroquois  (the 
Seneca),  called  by  an  early  writer  "  Sonnagars,"  who  en- 
slaved captives  taken  from  the  tribes  of  Carolina  and 
Florida.8 

1  Hazard,  Annals  of  Pennsylavnia,  p.  7. 

J  Discourse  delivered  before  The  New  York  Historical  Association 
at  the  anniversary  meeting,  December  6,  1811,  by  the  Honorable 
DeWitt  Clinton;  La  Hontan,  New  Voyages  to  North  America,  edited 
by  Reuben  Gold  Thwaites,  ii,  p.  504. 

8  Margry,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  141,  272;  iv,  p.  5. 

4  Hennepin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  659. 

5  Margry,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  527;  ii,  p.  141. 

6  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixii,  p.  67. 

7  Ibid.,  Ixi,  p.  195. 

8  Catesby,  The  Natural  History  of  Carolina,  Florida,  and  the  Bahama 
Islands,  etc.,  ii,  p.  xiii;  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  532. 


30  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [282 

Similar  practices  are  related  of  the  southern  Indians. 
The  Virginia  tribes  possessed  "  people  of  a  rank  inferior  to 
the  commons,  a  sort  of  servants  .  .  .  called  black  boys,  at- 
tendant upon  the  gentry."  1  When  Menendez  founded  St. 
Augustine  in  1565,  he  discovered  in  a  native  village  the 
descendants  of  a  band  of  Cuban  Indians  who  had  come  to 
the  mainland,  been  taken  prisoners  by  the  Florida  Indians, 
and  reduced  to  slavery.2 

In  the  south  the  strongest  tribes  were  the  Choctaw  and 
Chickasaw.  These  two  tribes  were  not  only  at  war  with 
each  other  from  time  to  time,  but  each  preyed  upon  the 
weaker  tribes  of  the  surrounding  country.  In  1717,  a 
Cadodaquiou  chief  informed  La  Harpe,  on  his  journey  to 
the  Nassoni  northwest  from  Natchitoches,  that  the  Chicka- 
saw had  killed  and  enslaved  their  nation  until  it  was  then 
very  small,  and  that  the  remnant  had  been  forced  to  take 
refuge  among  the  Natchitoch  and  Nassoni.3 

The  Choctaw  enslaved  the  Choccuma,  a  small  tribe  lying 
between  them  and  the  Cherokee,4  and  about  1770  captured 
and  burned  their  village.  The  chief  and  his  warriors  were 
slain,  and  the  women  and  children  became  the  slaves  of  the 
conquerors.5  The  Pima  of  the  present  southern  Arizona 
took  their  slaves  chiefly  from  the  ranks  of  the  Apache  and 
their  allies,  and  in  some  degree  from  the  Yuma.  These 

1  Beverly,  The  History  of  Virginia  in  Four  Parts,  second  edition,  p. 
179;  Smith,  The  General  Historic  of  Virginia,  New  England,  and  the 
Summer  Isles,  in  Arber's  edition  of  Captain  John  Smith's  Works,  ii, 
p.  570. 

2  Memoir  of  Hernando  de  Escalante  Fontanedo  on  the  Country  and 
Ancient  Indian  Tribes  of  Florida,  in  French,  Historical  Collections  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  series  ii,  p.  253. 

*  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  Hi,  p.  68. 

*  Bulletin  43  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  p.  296. 

6  Publications  of  the  Mississippi  Historical  Society,  v,  p.  305. 


283]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    ^ 

captives  were  largely  children.  When  not  killed  they  were 
enslaved.  Some  of  them  were  kept  within  the  tribe,  and 
were  even  permitted  to  marry  members  of  the  tribe.  But 
their  origin  was  never  forgotten,  and  the  innate  superstition 
of  the  natives  found  expression  in  the  declaration  of  the 
medicine  men  that  disasters  and  misfortunes  came  to  the 
tribe  through  the  presence  of  these  aliens.1 

In  1540,  Mendoza  stated  that  the  Pueblo  Indians  kept 
their  captives  for  food  and  for  slaves.2  In  the  same  yean 
Coronado,  on  his  journey  to  Cibola,  found  among  the  In- 
dians he  met  an  Indian  slave  who  was  a  native  of  the 
country  that  Soto  traversed.3 

When  Du  Tisne,  in  1719,  made  his  journey  west  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  he  found  the  Osage  at  peace  with  the 
Pawnee  and  at  war  with  the  Kansas,  Padouca,  Aricara  and 
other  tribes,  who  in  turn  preyed  on  the  Pawnee.4  The 
Pawnee  were  common  prey  to  the  tribes  on  both  sides  of 
the  Mississippi  River.  Their  nation  was  not  especially 
small  in  numbers,5  but  they  appear  to  have  been  lacking  in 
certain  warlike  qualities  with  which  some  other  nations,  as 
the  Illinois  and  Iroquois,  were  more  generously  endowed. 
On  this  account  they  were  so  generally  enslaved  by  their 
enemies  that  the  term  "  Pawnee  "  became  synonymous  with 

1  Twenty-sixth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 
1904-1905,  p.  197. 

2  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology  Publications,  xiv,  pt.  i,  p.  548. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  449;  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present 
Limits  of  the  United  States,  1513-1561,  p.  314. 

4  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  74.    Du  Tisne  meditated  making  peace  be- 
tween the  Pawnee  and  Padouca,  and  thought  it  could  be  done  by  giv- 
ing presents  to  each  tribe,  and  by  getting  each  to  return  the  slaves 
which  it  held  of  the  other  nation.     Chappell,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 

6  Iberville,  in  1702,  found  them  to  number  2,000  men.     Margry,  op. 
cit.,  iv,  pp.  597-599- 


32  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [284 

Indian  slave.1  In  1724,  de  Bourgmont  found  the  Kansas 
Indians  employing  Padouca  slaves.2  De  Boucherville,  also, 
on  his  journey  from  the  Illinois  country  to  Canada,  1728- 
1729,  took  with  him  a  little  slave  for  the  governor-general 
of  Canada,  and  was  offered  other  slaves  as  gifts  by  the 
Indians  whom  he  encountered.8 

In  a  letter  written  at  Quebec,  October  i,  1740,  the  Mar- 
quis de  Beauharnois  speaks  of  the  Huron  bringing  slaves 
from  the  Flathead  and  delivering  them  up  to  the  Outaouac 
(Ottawa).4  La  Verendrye,  in  1741,  was  told  by  the  Horse 
Indians  that  the  Snake  Indians  had  destroyed  seventeen  of 
their  villages,  killed  the  warriors  and  women,  and  carried 
off  the  girls  and  children  as  slaves.5 

Of  the  Wisconsin  tribes,  the  Ottawa  and  Sauk,  at  least, 
were  in  the  habit  of  making  captives  of  the  Pawnee,6  Osage, 
Missouri,  and  even  of  the  distant  Mandan,  whom  they  con- 
signed to  servitude.  The  Menominee  did  not  usually  en- 
gage in  these  distant  wars,  but  they,  and  probably  other 
tribes,  had  Pawnee  slaves  whom  they  purchased  of  the 
Ottawa,  Sauk  and  others  who  had  captured  them.  For  the 
sake  of  convenience,  they  were  called  "  Pawnees,"  though 

1  Thwaites,  Early  Western  Travels,  vi,  p.  61 ;  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix, 
P.  301. 

2  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  416. 

8  Narrative  of  De  Boucherville,  in  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, xvii,  pp.  42,  55,  89. 

*  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collections,  xxxiv,  p.  182. 

*  Parkman,  A  Half  Century  of  Conflict,  ii,  p.  46. 

6  The  term  "  Pawnee "  or  "  Panis  "  signifying  an  Indian  slave  was 
especially  used  in  Canada.  See  J.  C.  Hamilton,  Slavery  in  Canada, 
in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890,  pp.  102-108;  "  The 
Panis"  in  Canadian  Institute  Proceedings,  1899,  pp.  19-27;  Smith,  The 
Slave  in  Canada,  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society  Reports,  x,  pp.  3,  72. 


285]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    33 

some  of  them  were  certainly  from  the  Missouri  tribes. 
These  captives  were  usually  children.1 

"  Beginning  with  the  Tlingit,  slavery  as  an  institution," 
using  the  term  in  its  strictest  sense,  "  existed  among  all  the 
Northwest  coast  Indians  as  far  as  California.  It  practi- 
cally ceased  with  southern  Oregon,  although  the  Hupa  of 
Athapascan  stock,  and  the  Nozi  (Yanan),  both  of  northern 
California,  practiced  it  to  some  extent."  2  Slavery  in  some 
form  appears  to  have  existed  among  both  the  Klamath  and 
the  Modoc,  and  in  the  Columbia  River  district  as  far  as 
the  Wallawalla  River,  where  it  existed  among  the  Cayuse 
and  the  Nez  Perces.3  "  The  Northwest  region,  embracing 
the  islands  and  coast  occupied  by  the  Tlingit  and  Haida,  and 
the  Chimmesyan,  Chinookan,  Wakashan,  and  Salishan 
tribes,  formed  the  stronghold  of  the  institution."  4  To- 
ward the  eastward  the  institution  became  modified,  as  has 
been  shown. 

According  as  an  Indian  nation  proved  friendly  or  un- 
friendly, the  whites  used  it  for  their  own  advantage.  Orig- 
inally the  slaves  consisted  almost  entirely  of  captives  taken 
in  war,  for  there  was  but  little  trade  among  the  different 
nations  and  tribes  until  articles  of  commerce  were  given  by 
the  whites  in  return  for  furs  and  slaves.  How  the  traffic  in 
slaves  was  affected  is  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Choctaw  and 

1  Grignon,  Seventy-two  Years'  Recollections  of  Wisconsin,  in  Wis- 
consin Historical  Society  Collections,  iii,  p..  256;  Thwaites,  Early  West- 
ern Travels,  i,  pp.  304,  309.  In  the  present  state  of  Michigan,  traces 
are  found  of  Indians  holding  others  as  slaves,  though  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  forbade  slavery  in  the  Northwest  Territory.  Michigan  Pioneer 
and  Historical  Society  Collections,  xiv,  p.  658. 

1  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 

3  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 

4  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 


34  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [2S6 

the  Chickasaw,  the  former  friends  of  the  French,  the  latter, 
of  the  English..  The  ill  feeling  of  the  two  nations  was 
nourished  by  the  international  rivalry  of  their  white  allies 
to  whom  the  Indians  disposed  of  many  of  their  captive 
slaves.1  The  Spaniards  of  Mexico  made  slave  raids  and 
induced  the  Indians  to  do  so.  La  Salle's  expedition,  found 
abundant  evidence  in  1687  of  Spanish  trade  among  the 
Cenis  Indians,  in  their  possession  of  pieces  of  money,  silver 
spoons,  lace,  clothes  and  a  bull  from  Rome  exempting  the 
Spaniards  in  Mexico  from  fasting  during  the  summer.2 
Some  messengers  of  the  Chouman  among  the  Cenis,  and  the 
Cenis  themselves,  told  the  French  of  the  slave  raids  and  of 
the  cruel  treatment  of  the  Indians  by  the  Spaniards  to  the 
southward.8 

Even  the  Jesuits  were  not  averse  to  stirring  up  tribe 
against  tribe.  So  strong  was  their  interest  in  the  Huron 
that,  for  the  advancement  of  the  Jesuit  cause,  it  was  felt 
advisable  to  break  up  the  Iroquois  power.  Even  La  Salle 
advised  such  a  course  of  action,  and  urged  that  the  French 
strengthen  the  southern  Indians  by  supplying  them  with 
firearms  and  in  other  ways,  so  that  they  might  be  enabled 
to  defeat  the  Iroquois,  destroy  their  organization,  and  carry 
off  their  women  and  children  as  slaves.4 

On  the  other  hand,  since  the  Huron  were  the  friends  of 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  506;  French,  Historical  Collections  of  Louis- 
iana, pt.  iii,  pp.  33,  34,  68 ;  Cramoisy,  Journal  de  la  Guerre  du  Micis- 
sippi  contre  les  Chicachas,  pp.  65,  67,  68,  89;   La  Harpe,  Historical 
Journal  of  the  Establishment  of  the  French  in  Louisiana,  in  French, 
op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  27;  Brickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  324. 

2  Douay,  Narrative  of  La  Salle's  Expedition,  in  Shea,  Discovery  and 
Exploration  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  p.  204;  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iv, 
p.  204. 

8  Shea,  op.  cit.,  pp.  205,  211,  216. 
4  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  42. 


287]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    35 

the  French  and  had  been  largely  converted  by  the  French 
missionaries,  the  Jesuits  sought  to  better  the  lot  of  the 
Huron  slaves  held  by  the  Iroquois,1  and  sent  an  earnest 
appeal  to  the  Christians  in  France  to  contribute  funds  for 
the  redemption  of  the  Christian  captives.2  Hermepin's 
Narrative  tells  of  an  attempt  made  by  the  Jesuits  in  1681 
to  free  some  Ottawa  Indians  who  were  slaves  among  the 
Iroquois,  by  gifts  of  wampum  belts,  and  by  telling  the 
Iroquois  that  these  Ottawa  were  the  children  of  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  French,  and  that  by  holding  them  they  were 
making  war  on  the  French.3 

The  employment  to  which  the  Indian  slave  was  put  by 
his  Indian  owner  depended  largely  upon  the  section  in 
which  the  tribe  resided.  Their  use  as  domestic  servants 
was  probably  common.  Father  Fremin  tells  of  a  young 
Iroquois  woman  who  possessed  more  than  twenty  personal 
slaves,  whose  duty  it  was  to  get  wood,  draw  water,  cook, 
and  do  all  other  services  which  their  mistress  might  direct. 
On  the  death  of  the  owner  who  was  a  Christian,  her  mother 
desired  that  the  missionary  instruct  a  sick  slave  in  his  reli- 
gion, so  that  after  death  the  slave  might  attend  her  former 
mistress  in  Heaven  and  perform  the  same  services  for  her 
as  she  had  done  on  earth.4  Among  the  Illinois,  La  Hontan 
found  that  two  hours  after  sunset,  the  slaves  covered  the 
fires  in  the  lodge  before  going  to  rest.5  Bartram  mentions 
a  southern  chief,  who  had  attending  him  as  slaves  many 

1  Jesuit  Relations,  xliii,  p.  299;  xliv,  pp.  47,  49;  1,  p.  115. 

2  Ibid.,  xliii,  p.  293. 

3  Hennepin's  Narrative,  in  Shea,  Discovery  and  Exploration  of  the 
Mississippi  Valley,  p.  144. 

4  Jesuit  Relations,  liv,  pp.  93,  95. 

6  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  454.  A  Memoir  of  La  Salle  to  Frontenac. 
November  9,  1680,  declares  that  the  Illinois  forced  their  slaves  to  work. 
The  Historical  Magazine,  v,  p.  197. 


36  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [288 

Yamasee  captives  who  had  been  captured  by  him  when 
young.1 

Le  Jeune  found  the  Huron  and  Ottawa  Indian  slaves  en- 
gaged in  minor  household  duties.2  In  the  northwest,  en- 
slaved women  and  children  performed  the  same  labor.3 
One  other  use  to  which  the  young  women  and  girls  were 
put,  if  they  did  not  marry  into  the  tribe,  was  to  serve  as 
the  mistresses  of  their  owners.4 

All  the  tribes  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  south  of 
the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  the  Great  Lakes  practiced 
agriculture  to  some  extent.  They  all  raised  corn,  beans, 
squashes  and  melons.5  Consequently  the  captive  slaves 
worked  in  the  fields  with  the  members  of  the  tribe,  caring 
for  the  maize  and  vegetables.  The  Iroquois  used  their 
captives  in  tilling  the  fields.8  Captain  John  Smith,  in  speak- 
ing of  Powhatan's  tribe,  states  that  they  made  war,  "  not 
for  lands  and  goods,  but  for  women  and  children,  whom 
they  put  not  to  death,  but  kept  as  captives,  in  which  cap- 
tivity they  were  made  to  do  service."  7  A  part  of  this  ser- 
vice consisted  in  caring  for  the  crops.  The  Indians  of 
North  Carolina  kept  their  slaves  at  work  in  the  fields.8 

1  Bartram,  Travels  through  North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  East 
and  West  Florida,  p.  185. 

*  Jesuit  Relations,  xvi,  p.  199. 

•  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 

4  Jesuit  Relations,  xliii,  p.  293.     It  was  the  existence  of  this  class  of 
slaves  among  the  Iroquois  which  the  Jesuits  deplored  most  of  all. 

5  Carr,  The  Mounds  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Considered 
p.  8;  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  1513-1561,  p.  32. 

6  Carr,  op.  cit.,  p.  18, 

7  Purchas  His  Pilgrimes,  edition  of  1908,  iv,  pp.  1699-1700. 

8  Brickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  321 ;  Lawson,  op.  cit.,  p.  188. 


289]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    37 

Soto  found  that  the  Indians  among  whom  he  passed  had 
many  foreign  slaves  whom  they  employed  in  tilling  the 
ground.1  Among  the  Illinois,  La  Hontan  found  the  women 
slaves  employed  in  sowing  and  reaping.2 

Slaves  were  also  employed  in  mining,  hunting,  fishing, 
and  whatever  menial  tasks  needed  to  be  done  about  the 
camp.  But  few  of  the  tribes  worked  mines  to  any  extent, 
yet  Joutel,  1687,  found  the  Cenis  Indians  working  slaves  in 
their  mines.3  Hunting  and  fishing  were  more  important 
occupations,  since  they  furnished  food  for  the  tribe. 
Among  the  Iroquois,4  Huron,5  Ottawa,0  and  Illinois,7  such 
work  was  partly  done  by  the  slaves  who  often  worked  with 
their  masters.  In  the  northwest  the  slave  assisted  his  mas- 
ter in  paddling,  fishing  and  hunting.  He  cut  wood,  carried 
water,  aided  in  building  houses,  etc.8 

The  existence  of  barter  or  trade  among  the  different 
tribes,  and  among  individuals  of  the  same  or  different  tribes, 
as  a  means  of  obtaining  slaves  has  been  already  noted. 
Hence  it  follows  that  slaves,  along  with  wampum,  furs,  etc., 
served  as  a  medium  of  exchange  in  trade.  Furthermore, 
they  served  as  gifts  or  objects  of  barter  whereby  captives 
belonging  to  the  possessor's  tribe  might  be  obtained,  and  by 
which  an  unfriendly  tribe  or  individual  might  be  placated. 
They  were  given  to  the  whites  to  win  their  favor  and 

iLowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  1513-1561,  p.  32. 

s  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  432. 

*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  339. 

4  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixi,  p.  195;  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  94,  106,  in, 
113;  Hennepin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  509;  Carr,  op.  cit.,  p.  18. 

6  Jesuit  Relations,  xvi,  p.  199. 

6  Ibid.,  xvi,  p.  199. 

1  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  432. 

8  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 


38  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [290 

friendship.1  This  use  of  slaves  to  purchase  peace  with  a 
stronger  tribe  was  noted  by  Tonti  in  the  case  of  the  Illi- 
nois and  Iroquois.  The  Illinois  were  too  weak  to  cope  with 
the  Iroquois  on  a  certain  occasion  owing  to  their  young 
men  being  away  at  war,  and  so  by  the  gift  of  beaver  skins 
and  slaves  they  were  able  to  arrange  a  peace.2  Dubuisson, 
the  French  commander  in  the  war  of  1712  between  the 
French  and  allied  Indians,  and  the  Ottogami  and  Mas- 
couten,  records  a  similar  use  made  of  their  slaves  by  the 
Indian  allies  of  the  French  as  a  means  of  appeasing  the 
Potawatami  for  an  old  quarrel.3  From  the  area  about 
Green  Bay  in  the  present  State  of  Wisconsin,  De  Lignery 
wrote  in  1724  of  bringing  the  warring  tribes  to  an  amicable 
settlement  through  an  interchange  of  slaves.4  Other  French 
commanders  in  the  same  section  used  the  same  means  to 
regain  peace.  Not  only  to  each  other,  but  to  whites  as  well, 
were  slaves  given  in  order  to  make  reparation  for  losses  in 
war.  In  1684,  the  Indians  offered  Du  Luth  slaves  to  take 
the  place  of  some  assassinated  Frenchmen.5  In  1724,  the 
Indians  at  Detroit  offered  the  French  commander,  by  way 
of  truce,  two  slaves  for  the  same  purpose.0  When  slaves 
were  desired  for  such  use,  if  the  tribe  possessed  none,  a  raid 
was  often  made  upon  an  enemy  in  order  to  obtain  them. 
At  the  time  of  certain  disturbances  around  Detroit,  the 
Indians  in  the  peace  arrangements  promised  the  French  that 

1  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  345.  For  the 
legend  of  the  enslaving  and  freeing  of  the  Indians  of  Payupki  by  the 
Tusayan,  see  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Report  for  1886- 
1887,  p.  40. 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  56. 

8  Wisconsin  Plistorical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  284. 

4  Ibid.,  xvi,  pp.  306,  429,  444,  447-45 1. 

5  Ibid.,  xvi,  p.  123. 
•  Ibid.,  xvi,  p.  276. 


29I]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    39 

they  would  make  raids  on  distant  nations  to  obtain  slaves 
whom  they  would  deliver  to  the  French  allies  to  replace 
their  dead.1 

The  treatment  of  slaves  depended  upon  the  individual 
owner,  whose  disposition  and  mood  might  vary  from  kindli- 
ness to  extreme  cruelty  according  to  circumstances  or 
caprice,  and,  still  more  largely,  upon  custom.  In  the 
northwest  slavery  had  existed  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time 
before  the  coming  of  the  whites  to  modify  materially  the 
habits  and  institutions  of  the  people.  It  doubtless  pro- 
duced the  ideas  of  rank  and  caste  so  generally  found  among 
the  Indians  of  that  section,  but  so  little  known  elsewhere 
among  the  American  Indians.2  Nevertheless  the  slaves 
among  the  Indians  of  the  northwest  were  not,  as  a  class, 
considered  any  more  inferior  to  their  owners  than  the 
slaves  of  the  tribes  farther  east  where  adoption  was  more 
generally  practiced.  Consequently  servitude  in  that  section 
was  of  a  rather  mild  type.3  The  same  appears  to  have  been 
true  of  servitude  in  general  among  the  Indians.  Slaves 
were  probably  not  generally  neglected  or  abused.4  Yet 
there  are  many  testimonials  of  cruel  treatment.  Travelers 
spoke  of  the  slaves  of  the  southern  Indians  serving  and 
waiting  on  their  masters  with  signs  of  the  most  abject  fear, 
as  tame,  mild  and  tractable,  without  will  or  power  to  act 
but  as  directed  by  their  masters.5  The  slave  was  expected  to 
obey  his  master  blindly  and  without  disputing.8  In  this  con- 

1  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  v,  p.  79. 
1  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 

3  Ibid. 

4  This   statement  implies   that  the  term   "  slave "    does   not   include 
prisoners  of  war  who  were  tortured  by  their  captors. 

5  Bartram,  op.  cit.,  p.  185. 

6  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  439- 


40  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [292 

nection  it  must  be  understood  that  enslavement  of  captives 
in  war  was  in  itself  a  kindly  act  on  the  part  of  the  captors, 
determined  partly  by  the  need  of  laborers  and  additional 
members  in  the  tribe,  partly  by  the  use  which  the  victors 
could  make  of  these  captives  in  traffic  with  other  tribes  and 
with  the  whites,  and  partly  by  mere  whim.  Otherwise,  the 
prisoners  were  tortured  and  killed  as  an  expression  of 
hatred,  or  as  a  means  of  obtaining  revenge  for  injury.  To 
instil  fear  into  them,  slaves  were  often  compelled  to  observe 
the  torture  of  their  fellow  captives  who  were  condemned  to 
death.  La  Salle  relates  an  instance  in  which  slaves  were 
forced  to  eat  one  of  their  own  nation,  a  victim  of  such  tor- 
ture.1 Among  the  Cenis  such  a  custom  was  followed,  and 
it  is  quite  possible  that  this  method  of  producing  subjection 
was  consistent  with  the  habitual  cruelty  of  most  tribes. 

Precautions  were  taken  to  prevent  the  escape  of  slaves. 
The  southern  Indians  were  accustomed  to  mutilate  the  feet 
of  their  slaves  either  by  cutting  away  a  part  of  the  foot, 
or  by  cutting  the  nerves  and  sinews  just  above  the  ankle  or 
instep.  The  slave  was  thus  prevented  from  running 
rapidly,  and  if  he  should  escape,  the  tracks  of  his  mutilated 
feet  were  easily  recognizable.2 

The  life  or  death  of  Indian  slaves  depended  upon  either 
the  council  or  the  women.3  The  captives  were  apportioned 
by  the  council  to  different  individuals  of  the  tribe,  usually 
at  the  request  of  the  women,  who  often  preferred  to  adopt 
captives  into  their  families  to  replace  lost  husbands  and 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  160. 

1  Brickell,  The  National  History  of  North  Carolina,  p.  321 ;  Irving, 
The  Conquest  of  Florida  under  Hernando  de  Soto,  i,  p.  280;  Sh'pp, 
The  History  of  Hernando  de  Soto  and  Florida,  etc.,  p.  367;  Pickett, 
History  of  Alabama,  p.  64.  The  statements  of  Irving,  Shipp  and 
Pickett  are  based  on  the  account  by  Garcilaso  de  la  Vega. 

*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  95. 


293]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    41 

sons,  rather  than  to  revenge  themselves  for  the  loss  of  rela- 
tives by  demanding  the  torture  and  death  of  the  slaves.1 
After  such  distribution,  the  life  or  death  of  a  slave  de- 
pended entirely  upon  the  will  of  the  owner.  Among  a  bar- 
barous people,  a  slave's  life  naturally  had  but  little  value. 
Sick  and  useless  slaves  were  often  put  to  death,2  and  trivial 
faults  might  be  punished  in  the  same  way.  The  Jesuit 
missionaries  said  of  the  Iroquois :  "  When  a  barbarian  has 
split  the  head  of  his  slave  with  a  hatchet,  he  says,  '  It  is 
a  dead  dog — there  is  nothing  to  be  done  but  to  cast  it  upon 
the  dung  hill  V  3 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Jesuits  record  certain  instances 
of  kindness  shown  to  slaves  by  the  Iroquois  and  other 
tribes.4  One  important  difference  existed  between  the  In- 
dian slavery  as  practiced  by  the  Indians  themselves,  and 
that  in  existence  among  the  whites.  Among  the  Indians 
the  question  of  social  equality  did  not  determine  the  rela- 
tion of  the  slave  to  the  master.  The  Indian  slaves  were 
always  considered  eligible  for  adoption  into  the  tribes  as 
actual  members,  in  order  to  replete  the  numbers  reduced  by 
war,  famine,  disease  or  other  cause.5  Among  the  Iroquois 
certain  chosen  slaves  married  into  the  tribe  and  became 
heads  of  families  after  the  death  of  their  owners.  They 
led  a  tolerably  easy  life,  but  were  still  considered  as  slaves, 
and  had  no  voice,  either  active  or  passive,  in  the  public 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  95 ;  Marshall,  Historical  Writings  Relating 
to  the  Early  History  of  the  West,  p.  211;  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp. 
420,  505- 

s  Marshall,  op.  cit.,  p.  212;  Hennepin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  508;  Jesuit  Rela- 
tions, xliii,  p.  303. 

8  Jesuit  Relations,  xliii,  p.  295. 

4  Ibid.,  xliii,  p.  299;   Shea,  Discovery  and  Exploration  of  the  Miss- 
issippi Valley,  p.  34. 

5  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  599- 


42  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [294 

councils.1  Still  others,  who  had  been  the  richest  and  most 
important  in  their  own  villages,  received  no  reward 
from  their  masters  except  food  and  clothing.2  A  certain 
amount  of  liberty  seems  to  have  been  accorded  these  slaves, 
for  the  Jesuits  were  allowed  to  work  among  them  some- 
times as  openly  as  among  the  members  of  the  tribe.3  Bar- 
tram  found  that  among  the  southern  Indians  the  slaves  were 
dressed  better  than  their  owners,  and  were  allowed  to  marry 
among  themselves;  but  they  remained  slaves  for  life.4 

There  were  several  ways  by  which  Indian  slaves  could 
obtain  their  freedom.  Among  the  Huron  a  young  brave 
could  marry  his  mother's  slave,  and  his  parents  had  no 
right  to  hinder  him.  By  becoming  his  wife  the  slave  be- 
came a  free  woman.5  Among  the  southern  Indians  the 
children  of  slave  parents  were  free  and  were  considered  in 
every  respect  equal  to  their  parents'  masters.6  Among  the 
western  Indians,  upon  the  death  of  a  savage,  his  slaves  inter- 
married with  others  of  their  kind  and  lived  in  a  separate 
hut  as  a  sign  that  they  were  free  since  they  had  no  master 
to  serve.  The  children  of  such  marriages  were  adopted 
into  the  tribe  and  became  the  children  of  the  nation,  since 
they  were  born  in  the  country  and  village  of  the  tribe.  The 
Indians  believed  that  the  children  should  not  be  held  as 
slaves  since  they  "contributed  nothing  to  their  creation." 
In  the  northwest,  the  distinction  between  slave  and  free 

1  Jesuit  Relations,  xllii,  p.  293. 
1  Ibid.,  xliii,  p.  293. 
8  Ibid.,  1,  p.  115. 

4  Bartram,  op.  cit.,  p.  186. 

5  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  613. 

6  Bartram,  op.  cit.,  p.  186. 

7  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  474.     These  freed  slaves  were  accustomed 
to  go  each  day  to  visit  their  former  masters'  graves  to  offer  pipes  and 
tobacco  in  acknowledgment  of  their  freedom. 


295]    ENSLAVEMRNT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    43 

man  was  generally  sharply  drawn  with  regard  to  marriage, 
for  the  slave  usually  could  not  marry  the  free  man  or  wo- 
man, though  the  Makah  men  frequently  married  slave  wo- 
men. The  children  of  such  marriages  appear  to  have  held 
"  an  equivocal  position  between  free  men  and  slaves."  x 

The  most  common  mode  of  acquiring  freedom  was 
through  adoption  into  the  tribes.  -Among  the  tribes  of 
the  Great  Plains  and  the  Atlantic  Slope,  adoption  seems 
to  have  been  universally  practiced.  The  slaves  adopted  usu- 
ally consisted  of  war  captives,2  who  in  some  instances  were 
adopted  wholesale,  or  who,  after  a  period  of  servitude  in 
the  tribe,  had  proved  themselves  possessed  of  certain  desir- 
able qualities,  such  as  bravery  and  strength  in  war  or  the 
chase.  The  adopted  person  became  in  every  respect  the  peer 
of  his  fellow-tribesmen.  If  he  showed  his  ability  he  might 
become  of  high  rank  in  the  tribe.  If  he  were  a  poor  hunter, 
a  poor  provider,  or,  above  all,  if  he  turned  out  to  be  a 
coward,  he  was  despised  and  treated  according  to  his  de- 
merits, probably  worse  than  if  he  had  been  born  a  member 
of  the  tribe.  Still,  he  was  a  member  of  the  tribe  and  re- 
mained a  free  man,  though  he  was  deposed  from  man's 
estate  and  "  made  a  woman."  Adopted  persons  who 
showed  little  ability,  were  sometimes  made  to  serve  in  the 
families  of  the  influential  and  prominent  men  of  the  tribe; 
but  such  persons  were  free,  even  though  they  performed 
menial  labor.3 

In  some  sections,  a  captive  could  not  become  a  member 

1  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  598. 

a  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  599. 

3  Ibid.  For  the  Iroquois,  see  Carr,  op.  cit.,  p.  18;  Margry,  op.  cit., 
v,  p.  8;  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixii,  p.  63.  For  the  western  Indians,  see 
Hennepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  509;  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  59.  For  the  north- 
ern Indians,  see  Catesby,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  xiii  (editor's  note). 


44  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [296 

of  a  tribe  without  a  relationship  of  some  sort;  and  to  ob- 
tain this,  he  had  to  be  adopted  by  a  woman  as  her  child.1 
The  captive  took  the  kinship  name  under  the  fiction  that  he 
was  "  younger "  to  every  living  person  of  the  tribe  at 
the  time,  and  that  all  persons  subsequently  born  were 
"  younger  "  to  him.  If  the  captive  belonged  to  a  tribe 
of  hereditary  enemies  who  had  from  time  immemorial  been 
designated  by  opprobrious  terms,  such  as  cannibals,  liars, 
snakes,  etc.,  it  might  be  that  the  captive  was  doomed  to  per- 
petual "  younger  brotherhood,"  and  could  never  exercise 
authority  over  any  person  within  the  tribe,  though  such  per- 
son might  have  been  born  after  the  adoption  of  the  captive. 
Usually,  though  not  invariably,  the  captives  adopted  were 
children.  They  might  ultimately  become  useful  members 
of  the  tribe,  and  by  their  virtues  even  win  rank  in  kinship. 
A  captive  might  thus  pass  from  slavery  to  freedom.2 

Occasionally  the  settlement  of  intertribal  difficulties  re- 
sulted in  the  freeing  of  the  captives  by  the  victors,  with 
permission  to  return  to  their  former  homes.  Such  freedom 
might  be  given  to  a  whole  tribe  that  had  been  conquered,3 
or  to  single  individuals.  In  either  case  the  stigma  of  dis- 
grace attached  to  the  condition  of  slavery  still  remained, 
and  leaders  of  the  tribe  were  preferably  chosen  from  those 
who  had  never  been  slaves.4  Exchange  or  ransom  was 
common.  If  a  tribe  declared  war  against  another  formally, 
which  happened  but  rarely,  slaves  were  sent  with  the  notifi- 
cation of  such  fact  to  the  enemy,  and  were  given  their  free- 
dom if  they  promised  not  to  take  up  arms  against  their 

1  Hennepin,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  508. 

*  Fifteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 
1893-1894,  p.  cxii. 

1  Brickell,  op.  cit.,  p.  321 ;  Lawson,  op.  cit.,  p.  323 ;  Catesby,  op.  cit., 
ii,  p.  xiii. 

4  Jesuit  Relations,  liv,  p.  237. 


297]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    45 

former  masters.1  Freedom  was  given  for  performing  cer- 
tain services  against  their  masters'  enemies,  such  as  in- 
fluencing their  own  tribe  against  such  enemies.2 

In  concluding  this  account  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
among  the  Indians  of  the  present  United  States  it  should 
be  stated  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  treat  the  sub- 
ject in  detail.  The  purpose  of  the  chapter  is  to  show  the 
existence  of  slavery  and  something  of  its  nature,  so  as  to 
obtain  an  historical  setting  for  the  discussion  of  the  en- 
slavement of  the  Indians  by  the  whites  which  is  to  follow. 
Relatively  few  of  the  Indian  tribes  have  been  mentioned,  but 
these  covered  sufficient  territory  to  show  that  the  custom  of 
slave-holding  was  practically  universal.3  The  familiarity 

1  La  Hontan,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  508. 

3  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  46. 

*  The  holding  of  slaves  by  the  Indians  continued  long  after  colonial 
times.  It  naturally  died  out  first  in  the  east,  with  the  growth  in 
power  of  the  whites  and  the  consequent  decrease  in  the  numbers  and 
strength  of  the  Indians. 

The  Indians  of  the  Columbia  River  country  held  slaves  till  well 
into  the  nineteenth  century.  These  they  procured  by  trading  beads 
and  furs  with  the  interior  tribes.  Franchere's  Narrative,  in  Thwaites, 
Early  Western  Travels,  vi,  p.  324;  xxix,  p.  242;  xxx,  p.  in.  The 
Blackfeet,  Cayuse,  Crows,  and  Ute  were  accustomed  to  keep  the  wo- 
men taken  in  war  as  slaves,  (Ibid.,  xxiii,  p.  118)  ;  and  other  neighboring 
tribes  did  the  same.  Travelers  in  Oregon  in  1846  found  that  the 
Oregon  Indians  enslaved  their  war  captives,  and  that  they  made  war 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  slaves.  Ibid.,  xxix,  p.  124.  The  Toun- 
gletat,  who  inhabited  Vancouver  Island,  at  the  same  time  had  Ind'an 
slaves,  captives  in  war.  Ibid.,  xxix,  p.  149.  The  tribes  of  the  section 
south  of  the  Columbia  River  country  were  given  over  to  the  same 
custom.  Both  here,  and  in  the  Columbia  River  country,  the  Indians 
were  heavy  gamblers,  and  not  infrequently  staked  their  own  freedom 
in  their  games.  Ibid.,  xxx,  p.  161 ;  xxvii,  p.  171 ;  Parker,  Journey  Be- 
yond the  Rocky  Mountains,  p.  53.  The  Indians  of  the  extreme  north- 
west held  slaves  in  1840.  Considerable  numbers  were  owned  by  the 
chiefs.  These  were  worth  thirty  blankets  each,  and  were  generally 
purchased  from  the  natives  of  Queen  Charlotte  Island,  the  great  slave 


46  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [298 

of  the  Europeans  who  came  to  America  with  the  institution 
of  slavery,  and  the  finding  of  the  same  custom  among  the 
Indians  themselves,  make  their  carrying  on  of  the  practice 
quite  natural.1 

mart  of  the  northwest  coast.  Bancroft,  History  of  the  Northwest 
Coast,  ii,  pp.  647-649. 

The  slaves  of  the  Columbia  River  country  were  well  treated  as  long 
as  they  were  able  to  work.  The  district  was  a  commercial  one,  and 
the  slaves,  as  an  article  of  commerce,  were  valuable.  But  when  a  slave 
grew  old  and  was  unable  to  work,  he  was  neglected.  The  women  of 
the  tribe  had  several  slaves  who  were  dependent  entirely  upon  their 
will.  Slaves  could  be  purchased  by  the  male  members  of  the  tribes  for 
wives.  The  Oackinacke  Indians,  at  th  s  time,  possessed  but  few 
slaves,  and  these  were  adopted  as  children  and  as  members  of  the 
family.  Ibid.,  vii,  pp.  103,  107,  303. 

Until  1850,  the  Thompson  Indians  of  British  Columbia  enslaved 
captive  Indians.  Teit,  The  Thompson  Indians  of  British  Columbia,  in 
Memoirs  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  pp.  269,  290. 
In  1836,  the  Ch'nook  Indians  possessed  Indian  slaves.  In  1855,  the 
Ute  sacrificed  four  slaves,  and  buried  them  with  one  of  their  chiefs. 
One  of  these  slaves  was  buried  alive.  Thomas,  Indians  of  North 
America  in  Historic  Times,  p.  369.  In  1863,  the  Cherokee  abolished 
slavery  by  law.  This  was  amended  in  1866,  so  as  to  permit  it  as  a 
punishment  for  crime.  Thwaites,  Early  Western  Travels,  xx,  p.  303. 

1  Enslavement  of  the  whites  by  the  Indians  was  not  uncommon. 
Cabeza  de  Vaca  and  other  survivors  of  Narvaez's  expedit  on  were 
made  slaves  by  the  Indians  among  whom  they  wandered.  Narrative 
of  Cabeza,  de  Vaca,  in  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  \,  pp. 
64,  69.  So'.o  found  one  of  these  survivors,  Juan  Ort  z  by  name,  who 
had  taken  on  Indian  customs,  and  nearly  forgotten  his  native  lan- 
guage. "  Relation  of  Biedma"  in  Bourne,  Narratives  of  the  Career 
of  De  Soto,  ii,  p.  3. 

Strachey,  The  Historic  of  Travaile  into  Virginia,  speaks  of  a  story 
that  he  had  heard  from  the  Ind  ans,  concerning  an  Indian  chief,  Eya- 
noco  by  name,  liv'ng  somewhere  to  the  south  of  Virginia,  who  had 
seven  white  slaves  who  had  escaped  from  the  massacre  at  Roanoke. 
These  slaves  the  Indians  employed  in  beating  copper.  Hakluyt  Society 
Publication,  vi,  p.  26.  Whether  the  s'ory  is  wholly  or  partly  true  has 
never  been  determined.  That  the  Indians  of  the  locality  d  d  enslave 
the  whites  captured  in  war  or  shipwrecked  off  the  coast  is  shown  by 
the  preamble  of  an  act  of  Carolina  in  1707.  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  i,  p.  674.  In  the  war  of  1711,  the  Indians  spared  some  of  the 


299]    ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  INDIANS  THEMSELVES    47 

women  and  children  captured  on  the  plantations  so  that  they  might 
serve  as  slaves.  Ibid.,  i,  p.  182. 

Captain  Hendrickson,  in  1616,  found  three  persons  belong'ng  to  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company,  who  were  slaves  of  the  Mohawk  and 
Minquae,  and  who  were  traded  to  him  for  merchand.se.  Hazard, 
Annals  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  7. 

Father  Bressani  was  captured  in  1644  by  the  Iroquois,  and  given 
to  a  woman  as  a  slave.  She  sent  him  to  Fort  Orange,  where  he  w  is 
ransomed  by  the  Dutch  and  returned  to  France.  Jesuit  Relations, 
xxvi,  p.  49.  Other  Jesuits  were  enslaved  by  the  Iroquo's.  Basque- 
ville  de  la  Potherie,  Histoire  de  I'Amerique  Septentrionale,  iv,  pp.  125- 
163.  French  men,  women  and  children  had  a  similar  fate.  Jesuit 
Relations,  xl,  p.  137;  xlvi,  p.  207.  Some  of  them  were  ransomed  and 
freed  by  the  Dutch.  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  pp.  123,  125.  Joutel,  in  1687, 
feared  that  he  would  be  enslaved  by  the  Cenis,  and  put  to  work  in 
their  mines  along  with  their  Indian  slaves.  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  339. 
After  the  dea  h  of  La  Salle,  and  the  massacre  of  most  of  his  fol- 
lowers in  1687,  the  children  who  were  spared  were  taken  captive  by 
the  Span'sh  Indians,  and  sent  to  Mexico  as  slaves..  Margry,  op.  cit., 
iii,  P-  339-  Saint  Denis,  in  1721,  certified  that  he  had  been  eleven 
months  a  slave  among  the  savages  of  the  west  Mississippi  coun'ry. 
Robinson,  Account  of  Discoveries  in  the  West,  etc.,  p.  215.  As  late 
as  1754,  the  Indians  of  Virg'nia  had  French  prisoners  as  slaves. 
Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections,  ii;,  p.  267. 

In  the  time  of  King  Philip's  War,  Mrs.  Rowlandson  of  Lancaster 
was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Indians  and  sold  to  a  Narraganset  chief 
whose  slave  she  became.  Clark,  History  of  King  Philip,  p.  290.  Dur- 
ing the  various  colonial  wars,  many  Englishmen  were  taken  by  the 
Indians  as  slaves  and  sold  to  the  French  in  Canada.  Massachusetts 
Archives,  Ixxiv,  p.  57- 


CHAPTER  II 
ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS 

IN  their  attitude  toward  the  Indians  the  Spaniards  sim- 
ply applied  the  theory  of  their  time  regarding  slavery.  The 
taking  of  slaves  was  then  considered  part  of  any  expedition 
of  discovery  or  conquest.  The  high  authority  of  the 
Church  sanctioned  the  institution  of  slavery  to  the  extent 
that  the  leading  theologians  had  declared  all  barbarous  and 
infidel  nations  who  shut  their  ears  to  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, fair  objects  of  rapine,  captivity  and  slavery.1 

The  general  feeling  regarding  the  relation  of  the  Indians 
to  the  Spaniards  is  well  expressed  by  Hernando  de 
Escalante  Fontanedo,  who  was  with  Menendez  in  Florida 
as  interpreter.  In  writing  of  Florida,  he  declared  it  his  be- 
lief that  the  Indians  "  can  never  be  made  submissive  and 
become  Christians  " ;  so  he  advocated  that  they  all  be  taken, 
"  placed  on  ships,  and  scattered  throughout  the  various 
islands,  and  even  on  the  Spanish  Main,  where  they  might 
be  sold  as  His  Majesty  sells  his  vessels  to  the  grandees  in 
Spain."  2 

Given  this  attitude  on  the  subject  it  was  but  natural  that 
the  enslavement  of  the  American  Indians  should  begin 
with  the  discovery  of  the  Antilles,3  and  that  it  should  be 

1  Prescott,  History  of  the  Reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  the  Cath- 
olic, edition  of  1838,  i,  p.  390;  ii,  p.  40. 

2  French,  op.  cit.,  series  2,  p.  263. 

3  For  slaves  taken  by  Columbus  on  his  three  voyages,  see  Journal  of 
Columbus'  First   Voyage,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American 
History,  i,  pp.  112,  306;  Thacher,  Christopher  Columbus,  His  Life,  His 
Work,  His  Remains,  etc.,  ii,  pp.  301,  357,  393,  S&5,  644,  685. 

48  [300 


ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  49 

continued  by  the  explorers  on  the  mainland.  The  Spanish 
exploring  expeditions  were  war  expeditions  in  the  sense 
that  they  aimed  to  conquer  and  retain  for  the  crown  the 
territory  through  which  they  passed.  All  these  expeditions 
captured  and  retained  Indians  as  slaves.  Yet  in  some  cases 
it  might  be  difficult  to  determine  whether  the  Indians  en- 
slaved were  captives  taken  in  actual  warfare,  or  whether 
they  were  merely  kidnapped  by  the  expedition  passing 
through  their  territory.  Often  the  expeditions  possessed 
the  double  character  of  a  war  party  and  a  kidnapping 
company. 

The  enslavement  of  the  Indians  by  the  Spaniards  in  the 
early  years  of  occupation  was  legalized  by  a  royal  decree 
which  declared  the  act  to  be  in  accord  with  the  laws  of 
God  and  man,  and  justified  it  on  the  ground  that  Indians 
could  otherwise  not  be  reclaimed  from  idolatry  and  con- 
verted to  Christianity.  Consistent  with  its  assertion  the 
home  government  made  careful  provision,  in  the  various 
patents  issued  to  the  explorers,  for  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  the  enslaved  Indians. 

These  patents  commonly  made  provision  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  Indian  slaves.  That  of  Ponce  de  Leon,  February 
23,  1512,  authorizing  his  voyage  of  discovery  and  coloni- 
zation, provided  that  the  Indians  on  the  islands  he  might 
discover  should  be  distributed  among  the  members  of  the 
expedition,  that  the  discoverers  should  be  well  provided  for 
in  the  first  allotment  of  slaves,  and  that  they  should  "derive 
whatever  advantage  might  be  secured  thereby." *  The 
"  cedula,"  issued  to  Lucas  Vasquez  de  Ayllon,  in  1523,  au- 
thorized him  to  "  purchase  prisoners  of  war  held  as  slaves 

1  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  1513-1561,  p.  136..  According  to  the  patent,  the  king 
was  to  name  the  individuals  who  should  distribute  the  slaves.  Ibid., 
p.  136. 


50  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [302 

by  the  natives,  to  employ  them  on  his  farms  and  export 
them  as  he  saw  fit,  without  the  payment  of  any  duty  what- 
ever upon  them;  formal  apportionment  of  the  natives  was 
expressly  forbidden.1  In  the  patent  to  Soto,  also,  it  was 
required  that  he  should  carry  with  him  "  the  religious  and 
priests,  who  shall  be  appointed  by  us,  for  the  instruction 
of  the  natives  of  that  province  in  our  holy  Catholic  faith." 

The  idea  of  Christianizing  the  natives  was  applied  to  both 
free  and  slave  Indians.  The  taking  of  captives  by  force, 
and  then  Christianizing  them  was  the  continuation  of  what 
was  known  as  "  the  exercise  of  a  just  and  pious  doctrine 
against  pagans  and  heathens,"  a  doctrine  common  to  other 
nations  as  well  as  to  Spain.  The  patent  of  Ponce  de  Leon, 
however,  made  no  provision  for  Christianizing  the  Indians.8 
His  instructions  from  the  crown  required  him  to  summon 
the  natives  by  "  requisition  "  to  embrace  the  Catholic  faith 
and  yield  to  the  king  of  Spain  under  threat  of  sword  and 
slavery.4  Consequently  the  Spanish  explorers  within  the 
present  limits  of  the  United  States  continued  the  policy  of 
enslaving  Indians  pursued  by  their  countrymen  elsewhere 
in  the  New  World. 

1  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  1513-1561,  p.  162. 

1  Shea,  The  Catholic  Church  in  Colonial  Days,  p.  112;  Lowery,  op. 
cit.}  p.  136. 

3  For  this  reason  he  took  no  monks  or  priests  with  him.     Lowery, 
op.  cit.,  p.  136. 

4  The  proclamation  of  Ponce  de  Leon  is  quoted  in  Helps,  The  Con- 
querors of  the  New  World  and  Their  Bondsmen,  e'c.,  ii,  pp.  in-n6. 
This  peculiar  summons  to  surrender  had  been  used  by  the   Spanish 
explorers  and  conquerors  since  1509.     After  telling  the  Indians  of  the 
creation  of  the  world,  it  traced  the  title  thereto  to  St.  Peter,  and  thence 
to  the  ruling  pope.     It  cited  also  the  grant  of  the  Indies  by  the  pope  to 
the  sovereigns  of  Castile;  and  after  urging  the  Ind'ans  to  acknowledge 
their  fealty  to  these  sovereigns,  it  threatened  them  with  war  and  slavery 
if  they  refused. 


303]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  5I 

A  Spanish  ship  sailing  under  Esteban  Gomez,  a  Por- 
tuguese, in  1525,  coasted  along  the  shores  of  North 
America  between  Nova  Scotia  and  Florida,  seeking  the 
northwest  passage,  and  carried  a  few  Indians  back  to 
Spain.1  In  April,  1528,  the  expedition  of  Panfilo  de  Nar- 
vaez  landed  near  the  entrance  to  Tampa  Bay  on  the  west 
coast  of  Florida.  From  this  point  a  portion  of  the  ex- 
pedition started  into  the  interior.  The  first  Indians  met 
seemed  unfriendly,  and  five  or  six  of  them  were  seized.2 
On  one  occasion,  a  cacique,  or  chief,  was  held  prisoner.3 
But  supplies  failed  and  discouragement  followed,  so  the 
number  of  Indians  taken  was  not  great.  In  1538,  also, 
an  expedition  sent  out  by  Hernando  de  Soto  brought  two 
natives  from  Florida  to  Cuba,  where  they  were  held  to 
learn  the  Spanish  language  in  order  that  they  might  act  as 
guides  and  interpreters  for  the  expedition  of  the  following 
year.4 

In  1539,  Soto  himself  landed  in  the  Bay  of  Espiritu 
Santo  in  Florida  for  the  purpose  of  conquest.  He  had 
served  under  Pizarro  in  Peru,  and  his  methods  were  those 
learned  from  his  master.5  To  insure  success  all  opposition 
must  be  overcome,  so,  with  the  expedition  were  taken 
blood-hounds,  chains  and  iron  collars  for  the  catching  and 
holding  of  Indian  slaves.8  The  expedition  was  military  in 
nature,  hence  it  was  natural  that  force  and  conquest  should 
precede  conciliation.  There  is  no  doubt  that  one  of  the 

1  Lowery,  op.  cit.,  p.  169, 

*  The  Narrative  of  Cabeza  de  Vaca,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early 
American  History,  ii,  p.  25. 

*  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  30. 

4  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  20. 

5  Buckingham  Smith,  Life  of  De  Soto,  p.  170. 

*  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  60,  94,  97,  103,  105. 


52  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [304 

purposes  of  Soto  was  to  capture  Indian  slaves.  He  had 
chosen  as  his  lieutenant,  a  rich  resident  of  the  town  of 
Trinidad  in  Cuba,  Vasco  Porcallo  de  Figueroa,  who  had 
come  to  Florida  with  the  object  of  obtaining  Indian  slaves 
for  his  estates.  But  slaves  were  not  easily  obtainable  near 
the  coast,  so  Porcallo  returned  home  shortly  after.1  Soto 
himself  was  a  slave  owner.  Among  his  possessions  in 
Cuba  were  Indian  slaves,  whom  he  employed  as  herdsmen 
and  in  getting  gold.  In  some  cases,  the  Indian  chiefs 
through  whose  territories  Soto  and  his  men  were  passing, 
furnished  slaves.  At  other  times,  they,  both  men  and  wo- 
men, were  taken  by  force.  Narrators  relate  the  capture  and 
distribution  of  such  women  in  groups  of  one  hundred  to 
three  hundred.2  Among  the  captives  were  a  queen  and  a 
cacique.3 

After  the  survivors  of  Soto's  expedition  had  reached 
Mexico,  Viceroy  Mendoza  dispatched  the  Franciscan,  Fray 
Marcos  de  Niza,  in  1539,  to  inform  the  native  tribes  that  an 
effectual  stop  had  been  put  to  the  enslavement  of  the  In- 
dians. Some  of  the  friar's  party  reached  Hawaikuh,  the 
southernmost  of  the  seven  cities  of  Cibola.  The  account 
which  the  friar  gave  on  his  return,  induced  the  viceroy  to 
send  out  another  expedition  in  the  following  year,  1540. 
The  command  of  this  was  given  to  Francisco  Vasquez  de 
Coronado.4 

1  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  34. 
8  Ibid.,  i,  p.  45 ;  ii,  pp.  25,  121. 
*Ibid.,  i,  p.  70;  ii,  pp.  72,  75,  117,  129. 

4  Coronado,  in  his  letter  to  Mendoza,  August  3,  1540,  mentions  both 
negroes  and  Indians  in  the  expedition.  He  does  not  allude  to  their 
being  slaves.  In  other  parts  of  the  letter,  he  mentons  friendly  Indians 
accompanying  the  expedition.  Coronado's  Letter  to  Mendoza,  in  the 
Fourteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology; 
Shea,  The  Catholic  Church  in  Colonial  Days,  p.  114. 


305]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  53 

But  Coronado  did  not  carry  out  the  intention  of  Mendoza 
regarding  the  Indians.  The  records  of  his  expedition  do 
not  indicate  the  number  of  his  slaves  as  equal  to  that  in 
Soto's  expedition,  yet  Coronado  was  a  man  of  his  time, 
and  Mendoza  was  ultra  humanitarian.  When  Tiguex  was 
conquered  and  plundered,  March,  1541,  Coronado  im- 
prisoned and  made  servants  of  all  the  people,  one  hundred 
and  fifty  men,  women  and  children  who  were  in  it.1 

Still  other  Spanish  expeditions  were  nothing  more  than 
slave  raids  or  kidnapping  excursions.  In  1520,  Lucas 
Vasquez  de  Ayllon,  a  wealthy  resident  of  Hispaniola,  de- 
termined to  send  out  a  ship  for  the  purpose  of  exploring 
the  section  north  of  that  covered  by  Ponce  de  Leon  in  1513. 
His  caravel  met  among  the  Bahamas  a  second  ship  sent  out 
by  another  resident  of  Hispaniola  to  obtain  Indian  slaves. 
The  two  vessels  joined  company,  and  proceeded  toward  the 
continent,  which  they  reached  June  25,  1521,  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  River  Jordan  (the  present  Santee  or  Com- 
bahee)  and  the  cape  afterward  called  Cabo  de  Santa  Elena. 
By  gifts  and  proffers  of  friendship,  the  Indians  were  lured 
on  board,  and  the  ships,  having  obtained  a  full  cargo,  set 
sail  for  Hispaniola.2 

After  the  collapse  of  Narvaez's  expedition,  Cabeza  de 
Vaca  wandered  through  the  southwest,  hoping  to  reach 
Spanish  settlements.  As  he  proceeded,  he  met,  thirty 
leagues  from  St.  Miguel,  a  Spanish  expedition  coming  from 
the  south,  from  which  the  Indians  were  fleeing  lest  they  be 
captured  and  held  as  slaves.  Though  this  slave  hunting  ex- 
pedition met  with  considerable  success,  its  leaders,  never- 
theless, wished  to  enslave  the  friendly  Indians  who  had 

1  The  Narrative  of  the  Expedition  of  Coronado,  by  Pedro  de  Casta- 
neda,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  ii,  p.  324. 

*  Lowery,  op.  tit.,  pp.  156-157;  Martin,  The  History  of  North  Carolina 
from  the  Earliest  Period,  i,  p.  2. 


54  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [306 

guided  Cabeza  de  Vaca  and  his  companions  thither.1  Cabeza 
de  Vaca  relates  that  he  continued  his  journey  to  Compos- 
tella  in  the  company,  among  others,  of  six  Christians  and 
five  hundred  Indian  slaves.2 

Such  expeditions  from  Mexico  were  continued  until  well 
into  the  colonial  period.  The  Indians  whom  La  Salle  met, 
1684-1688,  told  him  they  knew  whites  toward  the  west, 
"  a  cruel,  wicked  nation,  who  depopulated  the  country 
round  them."  s 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  custom  of  enslaving  Indians  was 
general  among  the  Spanish  discoverers  and  explorers.  Not 
to  have  followed  such  a  custom  would  have  been  acting 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  times.  Church  and  State  sanc- 
tioned it.  The  need  for  a  servile  class,  and  the  supply  of 
natives  near  at  hand  to  meet  the  demand,  made  enslavement 
only  a  matter  of  course.  Slavery  existed  among  the  na- 
tive tribes  themselves  and  the  tribal  chiefs  readily  furthered 
the  policy  of  the  Spaniards  by  furnishing  them  with  addi- 
tional slaves  and  prisoners.  Consequently,  when  the  action 
of  the  Spaniards  is  viewed  from  the  moral  standpoint  of 
the  time,  no  condemnation  can  be  attached  to  their  practice 
of  enslaving  the  aborigines. 

Some  of  the  Indians  used  by  the  Spanish  explorers  were 
obtained  from  the  Indian  tribes  through  purchase  or  trade. 
Such  a  method  of  obtaining  them  was  advisable  when  the 
tribes  were  friendly  and  it  was  not  politic  to  arouse  their 
enmity.  Prisoners  and  slaves,  accordingly,  both  men  and 

1  The  Narrative  of  Cabeza  de  Vaca  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early 
American  History,  i,  pp.  25-118.  Among  the  Indians  of  this  region, 
who  were  carried  away  in^o  captivity,  were  Yaqui  who  long  after- 
wards remained  hostile  to  the  whites. 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  the  North  Mexican  States,  i,  p.  59. 

8  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iv,  p.  201 ;  Shea,  Discovery  and  Exploration  of 
the  Mississippi  Valley,  p.  201. 


ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS 


55 


women,  were  traded  or  presented  as  gifts,  along  with  other 
merchandise,  to  the  Spaniards.1 

In  all  the  exploring  expeditions,  the  need  of  guides,  in- 
terpreters, camp  laborers  and  burden  bearers  was  impera- 
tive. At  one  time,  Soto  possessed  eight  hundred  Indians, 
given  him  by  an  Indian  chief,  to  act  as  porters.2  The 
leaders  must  have  some  means  of  rewarding  the  services  of 
their  soldiers.  Gold  and  other  desirable  objects  were  scarce. 
Indian  slaves  helped  satisfy  this  need.  Soto  had  the  fore- 
sight, before  setting  out  on  his  journey  of  exploration,  to 
provide  guides,  consisting  of  Indian  slaves  seized  in  the 
territory  which  he  expected  to  traverse,3  and  seized  others 
to  act  in  this  capacity  as  occasion  required.4  Slaves  were 
used  for  the  same  purpose  by  Coronado.5  The  women 
slaves  were  used  largely  as  cooks  and  as  mistresses.  Soto 
apportioned  women  slaves  among  his  men.6  The  narrators 
relate  the  capture  and  distribution  of  such  women  in  groups 
of  one  hundred  to  three  hundred.7  Women  were  some- 
times given  by  the  chiefs  to  the  white  men  for  this  purpose, 
as  in  the  case  of  Coronado's  expedition.8 

In  general,  the  treatment  of  slaves  must  have  depended 
upon  the  individual  owners.  It  must  be  noted  that  it  was 

1  For  such  instances  in  Soto's  journey,  see  Bourne,  op.  cit.  For  Coro- 
nado's journey,  see  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History, 
ii,  pp.  289,  329,  342;  Narrative  of  Jaramillo,  in  Fourteenth  Annual  Re- 
port of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 

1  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  n. 

1  Ibid.,  i,  p.  20. 

*  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  55. 

5  The  Narrative  of  the  Expedition   of  Coronado,  by  Castaneda,  in 
Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  ii,  pp.  329,  342. 

6  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  21,  117. 

7  Ibid.,  i,  p.  45;  ii,  pp.  25,  121. 

8  The  Narrative  of  the  Expedition  of  Coronado,  by  Castaneda,  in 
Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  ii,  p.  289. 


56  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [308 

held  an  act  of  clemency  on  the  part  of  the  victor  to  enslave 
rather  than  to  slaughter  the  captives  taken  in  war,  for,  ac- 
cording to  the  ideas  of  the  time,  conquered  enemies  were  at 
the  disposal  of  the  conquerors.  In  the  case  of  Soto's  ex- 
pedition, the  treatment  of  the  slaves  appears,  on  the  whole, 
to  have  been  kind.  After  the  death  of  Soto,  the  Spaniards 
decided  to  quit  the  scene  of  exploration.  The  Indian  slaves 
could  not  be  taken,  for  there  was  no  way  of  transporting 
them,  so  it  was  decided  to  dismiss  them,  except  about  three 
hundred  belonging  to  the  leader  Moscoso  and  some  of  his 
friends.  To  satisfy  others  who  desired  to  take  their  In- 
dians with  them,  Moscoso  granted  permission  to  take  the 
slaves  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  river.  The  owners, 
moved  by  an  humanitarian  motive,  and  preferring  to  give 
up  the  Indians  before  sailing,  rather  than  to  free  them  at 
the  mouth  of  the  river  to  become  the  prey  of  enemies,  set 
free  five  hundred  men,  women  and  children.1  Many  of 
them  had  learned  to  speak  Spanish,  had  become  Chris- 
tians, and  were  so  attached  to  their  Spanish  owners  that 
they  wept  bitterly  at  the  separation.  This  scene  indicates 
an  affection  between  master  and  slaves  that  would  exist  only 
with  kind  treatment.  It  has  been  held  that  Soto's  treat- 
ment of  the  Indians  was  probably  better  than  that  practiced 
by  most  of  the  discoverers — a  treatment  at  least  partly  dic- 
tated by  policy,  for  the  Indians  of  the  section  traversed  by 
him  were  superior  to  those  of  Central  and  South  America, 
both  in  courage  and  perseverance.2  Those  Indians  who 
continued  the  journey  with  the  Spaniards  were  set  free  by 
the  viceroy  on  reaching  Mexico.3  In  the  siege  of  Tigeux 

1  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  193-194. 

3  Fairbanks,  History  of  Florida  from  Its  Discovery,  etc.,  p.  58. 
*  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  1513-1561,  pp.  249  (note),  357,  415,  417- 


309]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  57 

Coronado's  men  cared  for  those  Indians  who,  in  trying  to 
escape,  were  overcome  by  wounds  and  cold.1  Special  cases 
of  cruelty  occurred.  Strict  vigilance  and  severe  punish- 
ment were  necessary  to  prevent  treachery  on  the  part  of  the 
slaves.  The  cruelty  of  the  age  was  expressed  by  throwing 
a  lying  and  treacherous  Indian  to  the  dogs,2  by  cutting  off 
the  hands  and  noses  of  some,3  and  by  keeping  others  in 
chains.4  On  the  whole,  however,  the  treatment  of  the 
slaves  was  probably  no  more  cruel  than  that  shown  slaves 
elsewhere,  nor  than  would  be  expected  considering  the  ten- 
dency of  the  age,  the  nature  of  the  owners,  largely  soldiers 
and  adventurers,  and  the  incapacity  and  disinclination  of 
the  natives  for  many  kinds  of  labor. 

The  manumission  of  slaves  depended  partly  on  the  in- 
dividual owners,  partly  on  the  leaders  of  the  various  ex- 
peditions. An  instance  of  the  latter  kind  we  have  already 
seen  in  the  case  of  Moscoso  freeing  the  slaves  when  quitting 
the  scene  of  Soto's  expedition.  But  such  an  incident  was 
the  exception  rather  than  the  rule,  for  slaves  were  the  per- 
sonal property  of  their  individual  owners,  and  subject  to 
their  action. 

By  the  law  of  1543,  the  Spanish  government  intended  to 
end  Indian  slavery  in  its  American  dominions,5  but  the  law 
was  ineffectual.  The  American  possessions  were  too  far 
removed  for  thorough  control  by  the  home  government. 
When  Spain  took  final  possession  of  Louisiana,  in  1769, 
O'Reilly  discovered  that  the  French  held  many  Indian 

1  The  Narrative  of  the  Expedition  of  Coronado,  by  Castaneda,  in 
Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  ii,  p.  324. 

2  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  177;  ii,  p.  60. 

8  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  102,  139,  171,  191 ;  ii,  pp.  80,  121. 

4  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  44,  84,  93;  ii,  pp.  94,  97,  IO3,  105,  106,  no,  112,  113,  115, 
116,  117. 

5  See  Lucas  and  Stevens,  The  New  Laws  of  the  Indies. 


-g  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [-jlo 

slaves,  and  in  a  proclamation,  which  he  issued  in  1770,  de- 
clared this  to  be  "  contrary  to  the  wise  and  pious  laws  of 
Spain."  While  not  at  once  declaring  these  Indian  slaves 
to  be  free,  he  ordered  that  the  actual  proprietors  should  not 
dispose,  in  any  manner  whatever,  of  those  whom  they  held, 
unless  it  were  to  give  them  their  freedom,  until  the  orders 
of  his  Majesty  on  the  subject  should  be  received,  and 
further,  that  all  owners  of  Indian  slaves  should  make  a 
declaration  of  name  and  nation  of  the  Indians  so  held  in 
slavery  by  them,  and  the  price  at  which  they  valued  such 
slaves.  This  proclamation  was  generally  understood  by 
the  French  settlers  of  upper  Louisiana  as  emancipating  all 
the  Indian  slaves ;  yet  the  latter  remained  in  slavery,  either 
voluntarily  or  otherwise.  They  obtained  some  benefit  from 
O'Reilly's  decree,  however,  for  when  they  escaped  they  were 
not  returned  to  slavery,  and  when  they  sued  for  their  free- 
dom they  received  it.  Thus,  in  1786,  Governor  Miro,  in  a 
case  that  came  before  him  from  St.  Louis,  rendered  a  judg- 
ment that  liberated  several  such  slaves.  This  judgment  re- 
minded Lieutenant  Governor  Cruzat  that  the  ordinance  of 
O'Reilly  was  not  being  obeyed,  so  in  June,  1787,  he  issued 
a  proclamation  that  Indians  could  not  be  held  in  slavery 
under  the  ordinance  of  1770,  and  declared  that  he  "  judged 
it  expedient  to  repeat  the  aforesaid  ordinance,  so  that  the 
public  might  know  its  tenor  in  order  to  conform  to  it." 
Accordingly  the  said  ordinance  was  ordered  to  be  read,  pub- 
lished and  posted  in  the  customary  places.  No  order  on 
this  subject  was  received  from  the  king,  so  Baron  Caron- 
delet,  1794,  ordered  two  Indian  slaves  to  abide  with  their 
masters  until  the  royal  will  was  expressed.  In  the  same 
year,  however,  he  ordered  another  Indian  slave  to  be  re- 
leased.1 

1  Houck,  History  of  Missouri,  ii,  p.  240;  Wheeler,  A  Practical  Treat- 
ise of  the  Law  of  Slavery,  pp.   12-14.     O'Reilly's  instructions  to  the 


jri]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  59 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  through  direct 
executive  decree  that  Indian  slavery  passed  out  of  exist- 
ence in  Spanish  territory  within  the  present  limits  of  the 
United  States.  In  fact,  from  the  instance  cited  in  con- 
nection with  Louisiana,  it  is  seen  that  it  did  not  pass  out  of 
existence  until  after  the  colonial  period.  Certain  causes, 
however,  contributed  to  its  decline.  Great  number  of  In- 
dians could  be  hired,  at  very  small  wages,  to  perform  labor 
of  any  extent.1  Still  another  cause,  which  was  less  ef- 
fective perhaps  in  Spanish  territory  than  in  that  of  France 
and  England,  was  the  use  of  negro  slaves.  The  labor  of 
the  blacks  was  early  found  to  be  more  profitable  than  that 
of  the  Indians,  and  as  early  as  the  founding  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, Menendez  imported  into  Florida  five  hundred  negro 
slaves.  Otherwise,  "  the  labor  of  building  that  town  would 
have  fallen  on  the  white  men,  and  on  the  Indians  whom 
he  could  impress." 

From  the  earliest  days  of  Spanish  occupancy,  the  spirit- 
ual welfare  of  the  Indians  was  of  much  concern  to  the 
Spanish  Church  and  State.  The  materialization  of  such  an 
interest  was  largely  accomplished  by  the  establishment  of 
missions  throughout  the  Spanish  territory  from  Florida 
to  California,  chiefly  through  the  labors  of  the  Franciscans. 
The  endeavors  of  the  missionaries  resulted  in  the  establish- 
ment by  1615  of  twenty  missions  in  Florida  and  the  de- 
pendent coast  region.  By  1655,  the  Christian  Indian  popu- 
lation of  northern  Florida  and  the  Georgia  coast  was  esti- 
mated at  26,ooo.3  By  1630,  there  were  more  than  60,000 

various  commandants  at  Natchitoches,  the  coast  and  elsewhere,  are 
given  in  Gayarre,  History  of  Louisiana,  Spanish  Domination,  pp.  20,  25. 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  1530-1888,  p.  132. 

J  Lowery,  The  Spanish  Settlements  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States,  Florida,  1562-1574,  pp.  145-160. 

3  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  874. 


60  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [312 

'"  converts  "  in  the  Pueblo  missions  of  New  Mexico  and 
Arizona.1  In  California,  the  missions,  the  first  of  which 
was  founded  at  San  Diego  in  1769,  continued  in  a  fairly 
prosperous  condition  until  i834.2 

These  large  numbers  of  barbarian  neophytes  were  pre- 
sided over  in  each  of  the  missions  by  a  very  small  number 
of  monks  who  directed  the  religious  and  industrial  activities 
of  their  Indian  charges.  It  was  necessary  that  a  mission 
should  be  self-supporting.  The  Indians  gathered  at  these 
centers  voluntarily,  and  submitted  to  the  routine  life  of 
the  missions.  But  the  natives  were  ignorant  and  incapable, 
and  the  monks  were  in  consequence  the  directing  and  guid- 
ing force  among  a  population  which  responded  in  a  mechan- 
ical sort  of  way.  The  natural  result  was  that  the  mission 
life  developed  into  a  kind  of  slavery.  The  life  of  a  Cali- 
fornia mission,  though  of  later  date,  and  more  fully  de- 
veloped than  the  earlier  missions  of  colonial  times,  affords  a 
picture  of  the  general  condition  of  affairs. 

The  Indians  constructed  the  buildings,  planted  and  culti- 
vated the  fruit  trees  and  vineyards,  tended  the  cattle,  made 
pottery,  wove  cloths  and  performed,  in  fact,  all  the  manual 
labor  that  was  necessarily  required  in  an  extensive  colony. 
In  return,  they  received  food,  clothing  and  lodging,  were 
instructed  in  the  Church  doctrines  and  observances,  and 
were  taught  dancing  and  music  and  occasionally  the  rudi- 
ments of  reading,  writing  and  arithmetic.  Their  life  was 
a  regular  routine,  and  though  material  comfort  was  gener- 
ally in  evidence,  still  the  Indian  neophytes  were  never  al- 
lowed to  act  on  their  own  initiative.  Beyond  their  exist- 
ence from  day  to  day,  they  received  no  pecuniary  reward 
for  their  labors,  any  more  than  if  they  had  been  slaves.3 

1  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  893.  *  Ibid.,  pt.  i,  pp.  894-895.. 

3  Ibid.,  pt.  i,  p.  895;  Bancroft,  History  of  California,  i,  p.  in ;  Coman, 
Economic  Beginnings  of  the  Far  West,  i,  pp.  100-101,  147-155. 


ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  SPANIARDS  6l 

The  Indians  of  the  missions  were  generally  tractable,  but 
occasionally  the  desire  for  their  former  life  of  freedom 
brought  reaction  and  rebellions;  or,  incited  and  aided  by 
the  wild  tribes,  they  rose  and  destroyed  the  missions.  The 
revolt  of  the  Pima  in  1750  is  a  case  in  point.1 

The  "  alcaldes,"  or  local  officials  to  whom  the  king  had 
entrusted  the  protection  of  the  Indians,  instead  of  protect- 
ing them,  preyed  upon  them  for  their  own  profit.  These 
men,  like  many  of  the  colonists  themselves,  were  often  of 
an  inferior  class,  and  too  far  from  the  central  government 
to  feel  any  special  fear  at  disobeying  the  laws  that  the  home 
government  might  make  with  regard  to  the  natives.  Ac- 
cordingly the  Indians  were  often  induced  to  run  into  debt, 
and  had  in  consequence  to  mortgage  or  sell  whatever  prop- 
erty they  possessed.  They  thus  became  subject  to  what- 
ever impositions  the  officials  chose  to  put  upon  them.2  In 
1792,  Fray  Juan  Agustin  de  Morfi  complained  to  the  vice- 
roy of  New  Spain  that  from  each  pueblo  in  their  respective 
jurisdictions,  the  "  alcaldes  "  in  Texas  were  accustomed 
to  levy  weekly  contributions  of  produce ;  that  they  required 
the  Indians  to  perform  free  labor  upon  their  estates;  that 
they  demanded  heavy  tolls  from  each  pueblo  at  harvest 
time;  that  the  Indian  women  were  forced  to  grind  the 
"  alcaldes'  "  grain;  that  some  officials  required  tithes  of 
fleeces  and  compelled  the  Indians  to  weave  them;  and  that 
the  Indians  had  to  serve  as  mule  drivers  and  care  for  the 
animals  of  the  "alcaldes."  s  The  attitude  of  the  "alcaldes" 
toward  the  Indians,  furthermore,  was  repeated  by  the  offi- 
cials of  the  "  presidios,"  or  frontier  posts.4 

1  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  894. 

2  Coman,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  28-29,  31-32,  144. 

3  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  40-44- 

4  Ibid.,  i,  p.  99. 


62  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [314 

The  same  method  of  obtaining  cheap  labor  was  followed 
by  the  colonists.  Frequent  raids  were  made  upon  the 
"  rancherias,"  or  Indian  settlements,  to  secure  agricultural 
workers,  herdsmen  and  domestic  servants.  Children  were 
usually  in  demand,  but  adults  also  were  taken.  The  prac- 
tice continued,  indeed,  until  late  in  the  eighteenth  century.1 

1  Barrett,  The  Ethno-Geography  of  the  Porno  and  Neighboring  In- 
dians, in  University  of  California  Publications  in  American  Archaeology 
and  Ethnology,  vi,  p.  45. 


CHAPTER  III 
ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH 

IN  the  French  colonies  of  America,  Indian  slavery  was 
never  authorized  by  legal  declaration  during  the  early 
colonial  period.1  In  fact,  the  matter  received  no  attention 
whatever  from  the  home  government.  Such  lack  of  notice 
on  the  part  of  the  monarch  was  due  to  the  insignificance  of 
American  affairs  in  general,  and  to  the  unimportance  of  the 
institution  of  Indian  slavery  in  particular.  Gradually,  how- 
ever, as  the  matter  began  to  assume  importance  in  the 
system  of  trade,  through  the  influence  of  the  trading  com- 
panies certain  indirect  royal  action  was  taken  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  and  this  action  recognized  the  existing  in- 
stitution as  legal.  The  modifications  which  the  king  sought 
to  accomplish  in  it  did  not  aim  to  destroy  the  institution, 
but  rather  tended  to  make  it  better  suited  to  the  require- 
ments of  trade. 

Some  doubt  appears  to  have  existed  regarding  the  legal 
status  of  Indian  slaves,  and,  in  order  to  remove  it,  Jacques 
Raudot,  the  intendant  at  Quebec,  decreed  in  April,  1709, 
that  "  all  the  Pawnis  and  Negroes,  who  have  been  bought 
and  who  shall  be  purchased  hereafter,  shall  belong  in  full 
proprietorship  to  those  who  have  purchased  them  as  their 
slaves."  The  state  of  unrest  caused  by  the  "  coureurs  de 

1  The  edict  of  Louis  XIV  in   1688  authorizing  the  importation  of 
slaves   related  only  to  negroes   from    Africa.     Hamilton,   Slavery   in 
Canada,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890,  i,  p.  102. 

2  Hamilton,  op.  cit.,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890, 
i,  p.  102;  Memoir es  et  Documents  Relatifs  a  I'Histoire  du  Canada,  p.  5. 

315]  63 


64  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [316 

bois  "  and  others  stirring  up  the  tribes  in  order  to  take 
captives  for  sale  to  the  French  as  slaves,  interfered  with 
the  success  of  the  trading  corporation  then  in  possession 
of  Louisiana,  and  on  October  25,  1720,  the  Company  of  the 
Indies  issued  a  command  from  Paris,  stating  that  such  ac- 
tion was  contrary  to  the  command  of  the  king,  and  harm- 
ful to  both  the  commercial  welfare  of  the  Company  and  the 
establishments  which  it  hoped  to  make  in  the  territory  of 
the  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Arkansas  tribes.  The  Sieur  de 
Bourgmont,  in  the  service  of  the  Company  in  that  area,  was 
directed  to  arrest  and  confiscate  the  merchandise  of  the 
"  voyageurs  "  who  should  come  to  trade  within  the  confines 
of  his  jurisdiction  without  first  obtaining  permission  and 
declaring  to  him  the  motives  with  which  they  wished  to 
trade.  Bienville,  then  in  immediate  charge  of  the  colony 
in  Louisiana,  was  directed  to  execute  this  order  of  the 
Company  at  once,  and  all  other  officers  as  well  were  en- 
joined to  carry  it  out  and  to  give  any  aid  and  assistance  to 
M.  de  Bourgmont  which  he  might  require  in  fulfilling  his 
instructions.1 

On  July  23,  1745,  the  royal  council  at  Paris  sanctioned 
the  possession  of  Indian  slaves  by  declaring  that  all  slaves 
who  might  follow  the  enemy  to  the  colonies  of  France,  and 
their  effects,  should  belong  to  his  most  Christian  Majesty.2 
After  the  acquisition  of  Canada  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain  showed  itself  favorable  to  the  importation  of 
slaves  into  the  colonies.  Accordingly,  the  forty-seventh 
article  of  the  capitulation  of  September  8,  1760,  provided: 
"  The  negroes  and  Pawnees,  of  both  sexes,  shall  remain  in 
their  quality  of  slaves,  in  the  possession  of  French  and 
Canadians  to  whom  they  belong ;  they  shall  be  at  liberty  to 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  316. 

'  Hamilton,  op.  cit.,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890, 
i,  p.  102. 


3 1 7]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  65 

keep  them  in  their  service  in  the  colony,  or  to  sell  them; 
and  they  shall  also  continue  to  bring  them  up  in  the  Roman 
religion."  * 

Public  opinion  in  France  never  concerned  itself  with  the 
matter  of  Indian  slavery.  There  appears  to  have  been  no 
opposition  to  it,  either  in  France  or  in  the  French  colonies 
of  America.  Public  opinion  early  countenanced  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  in  the  colonies  without  distinction  of 
color  or  race.2  It  was  negro  slavery  that  brought  profit 
to  the  trader  as  well  as  to  the  colonist.  The  Indian  slave 
in  the  French  colonies  possessed  no  champion,  such  as  the 
Indian  slave  in  the  Spanish  territory  had  in  Las  Casas. 
Within  the  French  territory  under  discussion,  negro  slavery 
continued,  without  meeting  violent  opposition,  as  long  as  the 
territory  remained  under  French  control.  And  with  it  con- 
tinued Indian  slavery,  gradually  growing  weaker  as  negro 
slavery  grew  stronger,  and  so  less  likely  to  attract  attention. 

Much  of  the  French  exploration  was  carried  on  by  the 
missionaries.  Slave  holding  was  not  inconsistent  with  the 
belief  of  these  religious  travelers.3  Two  objects  inspired 
their  zeal :  the  "  greater  glory  of  God,"  and  "  the  influence 
and  credit  of  the  order  of  Jesus,"  of  which  many  of  them 

1  Hamilton,  op.  cit..  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890, 
i,  p.  102;  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  x,  p.  1118.     General  Amherst, 
the  English  commander  and  agent  in  the  negotiations,  wrote  oppos'te 
the  proposition :   "  Granted,  except  those  who  shall  have  been  made 
prisoners." 

Though  the  word  "  Pawnee,"  in  the  records,  seems  to  have  special 
reference  to  Indian  slaves,  it  is  sometimes  used  by  the  old  Canadian 
writers  to  signify  all  persons  in  servitude,  w'.thout  regard  to  color. 
Hamilton,  op.  cit.,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890, 
i,  P-  107. 

2  In  1557,  ten  young  Brazilian  Indians  were  purchased  by  Villegaignon, 
and  sent  to  France  as  a  gift  to  King  Henry  II.     The  king  distributed 
them  among  the  nobles  of  his  court.     Lescarbot,  Histoire  de  la  Nou- 
velle-France,  i,  p.  174. 

*  See  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  Institute,  ii,  p.  173. 


66  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [318 

were  members.1  To  the  missionaries  about  to  start  from 
Paris  to  explore  the  Ottawa  country,  the  direction  was 
given :  "  Remember  it  is  Christ  and  the  Cross  you  are  seek- 
ing, and  if  you  aim  at  anything  else,  you  will  get  nothing 
but  affliction  for  body  and  mind."  2  The  Jesuit  held  that 
if  the  object  was  good,  the  action  was  right.  It  would 
redound  to  the  glory  of  God  to  convert  any  heathen,  bond 
or  free;  therefore,  slave  holding  by  a  monk  was  legitimate. 
The  records  do  not  show  any  great  numbers  of  slaves 
owned  by  the  missionary  explorers.  There  are  certain 
reasons  why  this  was  so.  Abnegation  of  self  was  a  part 
of  the  Jesuitic  doctrine,  so  the  monk  could  have  no  need 
for  any  considerable  number  of  personal  attendants.  He 
possessed  no  mines  or  lands  for  the  working  of  which  slaves 
could  be  used.  What  services  the  fathers  could  not  per- 
form in  the  extension  of  their  faith,  were  performed  partly 
by  servants  brought  from  France,  and  partly  by  "  donnes," 
or  those  who  voluntarily  gave  their  labor.  At  the  mis- 
sions 3  and  in  the  Indian  villages  where  the  missionaries 
stayed,  the  Indians  rendered  them  free  service  and  fur- 
nished them  with  supplies.  Then,  too,  the  Indian  domestic 
did  not  prove  very  satisfactory.4  The  slave  was  a  subject 
for  conversion,  but  the  French  missionary  did  not  spend 
much  time  on  the  conversion  of  single  individuals.  He 

1  Parkman,  The  Discovery  of  the  Great  West,  sixth  edition,  p.  27. 

1  Thwaites,  Father  Marquette,  p.  34. 

1  It  should  be  noted  that  the  missions  never  attained  the  same  promi- 
nence among  the  French,  with'n  the  limits  of  the  present  United  States, 
as  among  the  Spaniards.  "  The  neophyte  was  too  much  a  child,  too- 
much  a  slave,  too  little  a  man  "  to  please  the  Frenchman. 

*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  162.  La  Salle,  on  his  expedition,  employed 
Indian  hunters  who  were  not  slaves.  Joutel's  Journal  of  La  Salle's 
Last  Voyage,  pp.  20,  76,  82,  94,  95,  97,  98;  Parkman,  The  Discovery  of 
the  Great  West,  sixth  edition,  pp.  144,  356. 


3!9]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  67 

aimed  rather  to  collect  the  heathen  in  groups  about  a  reli- 
gious center,  and  to  guide  and  teach  them  somewhat  after 
the  manner  of  his  brethren  in  Paraguay.  Yet  we  find  that 
the  French  missionaries  possessed  some  Indian  slaves.1  It 
would  not  do  to  refuse  to  save  any  soul,  neither  was  it  ad- 
visable to  risk  the  chance  of  offending  any  Indian,  whatever 
his  rank,  who  might  make  them  the  gift  of  a  slave.  Most 
of  the  slaves  held  by  the  missionaries  appear  to  have  been 
gifts.  Sometimes  to  accept  such  a  slave  was  to  save  the 
person  from  death.  Some  of  the  slaves  were  purchased. 
By  teaching  them  the  French  language,  and  the  principles 
of  the  Christian  Church,  the  clergy  hoped  to  make  mis- 
sionaries of  some  of  them,  and  so  extend  the  scope  of  their 
religion. 

The  chief,  though  not  the  earliest,  source  of  Indian  slaves 
among  the  French  was  that  of  captives  taken  in  war  with 
the  Indian  tribes.  For  many  years  after  the  coming  of 
the  French  to  Louisiana,  they  and  the  Natchez  Indians  lived 
in  friendly  intercourse.  Minor  Indian  troubles  in  1711  a 
and  I7I53  resulted  in  the  enslavement  and  transportation 
of  certain  Indians  to  Cape  Francois  on  the  island  of  Haiti. 
The  hostilities  begun  with  the  Natchez  Indians  in  1715  con- 
tinued intermittently  until  1740.*  In  1730,  because  of  ill 
treatment  by  M.  du  Chapart,  governor  of  Fort  Rosalie,  who 
wished  the  site  of  a  Natchez  village  on  which  to  build  a 
town,  and  because  of  other  abuses,  the  Natchez  rose  against 
the  French  and  massacred  over  two  hundred  of  them.5 

1  Jesuit  Relations,  xxx,  p.  133. 

1  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13.  .  .    Correspondance  Gen- 
erale,  ii,  1707-1712. 

3  Lowry  and  McCardle,  A  History  of  Mississippi  from  the  Discovery, 
etc.,  second  edition,  p.  84. 

4  Thwaites,  Early  Western  Travels,  xiii,  p.  179. 

8  Thomas,  The  Indians  of  North  America,  etc.,  p.  321. 


68  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [320 

Governor  Perier  formed  an  army  and  advanced  against 
them  in  their  fort.  The  Natchez  offered  to  leave  the  place 
if  their  lives  were  spared.  Their  offer  was  accepted,  but 
they  were  detained  as  prisoners,  all  but  twenty  who  es- 
caped.1 About  four  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  tribe,  includ- 
ing the  Great  Sun,  the  Little  Sun  and  several  of  the  prin- 
cipal war  chiefs,  were  captured  and  carried  to  New  Orleans.2 
The  women  and  children  were  retained  as  slaves  on  the 
plantations.  Some  of  the  prisoners  were  burned  in  New 
Orleans.3  The  Great  Sun,  the  Little  Sun,  their  families, 
and  more  than  four  hundred  of  the  captives,  were  sent  at- 
once  to  Cape  Frangois,  Haiti,  and  most  of  them  sold  to  the 
planters  as  slaves.4  The  two  chiefs  and  their  families 
were  retained  as  prisoners  on  the  island.  On  April  22, 
1731,  the  minister  informed  the  Company  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  only  solution  of  the  matter  lay  in  selling  as 
slaves  the  survivors  of  the  two  families.  The  registers  of 
the  Company  contain  the  following  record :  "  It  was  re- 
solved to  order  the  sale  of  the  survivors  of  the  said  two 
families  of  Natchez  Indians."  5 

1  Garneau,  Histoire  du  Canada,  etc.,  fourth  edition,  ii,  p.  95.  "  The 
number  of  the  Natchez  that  escaped  the  grasp  of  Perier,  at  this  time, 
has  been  put  down  by  some  writers  as  three  hundred  warriors." 
French,  Historical  Memoirs  of  Louisiana,  series  5,  p.  102. 

*  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  36 ;  Monette,  History  of  the  Disco-very  and 
Settlement  of  the  Valley  of  the  Mississippi,  etc.,  i,  p.  272,  states  the 
number   as    four  hundred   and   twenty-seven.     Lowry   and   McCardle, 
op.  cit.,  p.  85,  place  the  number  as  forty-five  male  Indians,  and  four 
hundred  and  fifty  women  and  children. 

*  Pittman,   The  Present  State  of  the  European  Settlements  on   the 
Mississippi,  Hodder  edition,  p.  80. 

4  On  the  passage,  some  of  the  Indians,  for  "  showing  their  resent- 
ment by  unbraiding  the  authors  of  their  misery,"  were  thrown  into  the 
sea.    Ibid.,  p.  80. 

5  Marbois,  op.  cit.,  p.  119,  and  appendix,  No.  4. 


32 1 ]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  69 

The  Natchez  war  was  the  most  important  of  those  be- 
tween French  and  Indians  in  Louisiana.  There  were,  how- 
ever, minor  difficulties,  from  time  to  time,  in  which  the 
same  policy  of  enslaving  the  captive  Indians  was  followed 
by  the  French.  The  war  with  the  Fox  Indians,  1712,  serves 
as  an  example  of  these  lesser  troubles.1  By  1720,  war  had 
broken  out  between  the  French  and  the  Chickasaw,  whom 
the  English  had  stirred  up.2  An  intermittent  warfare  with 
this  tribe  and  others  continued  in  1724^  1728,*  1736  B  (with 
a  peace  in  1740), 6  1750, 7  and  1752. 8  Captives  were  en- 
slaved by  both  sides.  Some  of  these  were  left  with  the 
Indians  to  dispose  of  at  will.  Others  were  kept  among 
the  French  as  slaves.9 

During  the  period  of  colonial  history,  each  European 
nation  was  in  alliance,  from  time  to  time,  with  various 
Indian  tribes.  In  time  of  war  with  other  tribes,  the  allied 
Indians  took  an  active  part,  and  not  infrequently  they  were 
urged  on  to  hostilities  by  their  white  friends  for  various 
reasons.  One  of  these  reasons  was  to  obtain  war  captives 
to  give  to  the  whites  for  slaves.  In  1698,  Tonti  had  en- 
couraged the  Illinois,  who  were  in  alliance  with  the  French, 
to  capture  and  enslave  the  Iroquois  Indians  and  so  break 

1  Ferland,  Cours  d'Histoire  du  Canada,  seconde  partie,  p.  446. 

1  Landun,  Journal  d'un  Voyage  a  la  Louisiane  fait  en  1720,  p.  247 ; 
Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  316;  La  Harpe's  Journal  in  French,  op.  cit.,  p.  351. 

8  Martin,  The  History  of  Louisiana  from  the  Earliest  Period,  i,  p. 
256. 

*  Ibid.,  i,  p.  256. 

6  Dubroca,  L'ltineraire  des  Franqais  dans  la  Louisiane,  p.  81. 

6  Thomas,   The  Indians  of  North  America,  etc.,  p.   319;   Cramoisy, 
Journal  de  la  Guerre  du  Micissippi  contre  les  Chicachas,  p.  65. 

7  Cramoisy,  op.  cit.,  p.  65. 

8  Gayarre,  Louisiana,  its  History  as  a  French  Colony,  p.  64. 

9  Cramoisy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  49,  65,  67,  68,  89;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  432. 


-o  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [322 

their  power.1  La  Salle  favored  the  same  course.2  In  1708, 
the  Canadian  French  were  exciting  the  Indians  about  Kas- 
kaskia  to  wage  war  with  each  other,  and  were  on  the  spot 
to  get  slaves  to  sell  to  the  English.3  The  Marquis  de  Vau- 
dreuil,  governor-general  of  Canada,  in  1706  demanded  of 
the  Ottawa  of  Detroit  certain  captives  as  slaves  for  the 
allied  Sonnontouan  to  replace  their  men  slain  by  the 
Ottawa,4  and  others  to  be  slaves  to  the  French,  in  return 
for  a  missionary  and  a  French  deserter  they  had  killed/1 
The  slaves  were  duly  presented  in  I7O7.6  The  demands  of 
the  governor-general  were  part  of  a  military  plan  to  form 
an  alliance  of  the  western  tribes  with  the  French,  and 
continued  the  Indian  custom  of  giving  slaves  to  make  repa- 
ration for  injuries  committed  or  for  foes  slain.7  Thus  the 
allied  Indians  were  satisfied,  and  a  token  of  subjection  was 
obtained  from  the  Ottawa.8  As  late  as  1723,  de  Vaudreuil 
was  accused  of  urging  on  the  Abnaki  against  the  Illinois  to 
get  slaves  for  him.9  Apparently,  such  action  was  as  agree- 
able to  the  Indians  as  to  the  French.  An  Indian  orator  of 
the  Arkansas  tribe,  in  his  address  given  in  honor  of  Bossu's 
arrival  in  1762,  said :  "  We  warriors  will  strike  the  common 
enemy  to  get  prisoners  which  shall  serve  as  slaves." 

Sometimes  the  French  went  still  further,  and  demanded 
that  conquered  tribes  make  war  on  other  tribes  in  order  to 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  564. 

3  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  42. 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  476;  French,  op.  cit.,  new  series,  i,  p.  100. 
Hennep:n,  A  New  Discovery,  etc..,  p.  631,  mentions  the  French  of 
Kaskaskia  using  both  Indian  and  negro  slaves. 

4  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collections,  xxxiii,  p.  286. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  324,  397.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  328,  439,  544- 

7  Ibid.,  p.  550.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  365,  396. 

•  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  pp.  434,  436. 

10  Bossu,  Nouveaux  Voyages  dans  I'Amerique  Septentrionale,  p.  100. 


323]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  ji 

get  captives  for  them  to  take  the  place  of  Frenchmen  killed 
during  the  war.  Such  a  condition  Sieur  de  Louvigny 
placed  on  the  conquered  Fox  Indians  in  I7I6.1 

As  already  observed,  kidnapping  was  the  means  earliest 
adopted  by  all  the  European  nations  for  taking  Indians  as 
slaves.  In  1524,  accordingly,  Verrazano  attempted  to  cap- 
ture an  Indian  family  consisting  of  an  old  woman,  a  young 
girl  and  six  children,  on  the  northeast  coast  of  North 
America.  But  the  girl  proved  so  intractable  that  the  sol- 
diers were  forced  to  give  up  the  attempt  to  take  the  whole 
family  to  the  ship,  and  finally  carried  away  but  one  small 
boy  who  was  too  young  to  make  any  resistance.2  The  pur- 
pose of  Verrazano's  expedition  was  to  obtain  for  France  a 
place  in  the  discoveries  in  which  the  rival  powers,  Spain, 
Portugal  and  England  were  engaged.  Some  proof  that  the 
expedition  reached  the  New  World  was  desirable.  A  native 
would  furnish  it. 

In  Cartier's  first  expedition,  1534,  he  seized  some  of  the 
natives  and  carried  them  on  board  his  ships.  The  relations 
with  the  Indians  were  so  friendly  that  he  was  able,  by  gifts 
and  explanations,  to  persuade  them  that  he  meant  no  harm. 
Two  of  them  were  finally  detained  on  board  and  carried  to 
France.3  On  the  second  expedition,  in  1535,  Cartier,  reply- 
ing to  the  request  of  the  chief,  Taiguragui,  that  the  French 

1  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  343. 

*  Kohl,  Documentary  History  of  Maine,  i,  p.  255.    Verrazano  says  of 
the  Indians  of  this  region :  "  They  are  suspicious,  hostile  and  desirous 
of  obtaining  steel  implements  for  defense  against  kidnappers,  who  fre- 
quent the  coast  to  seize  and  transport  them  to  the  Spanish  Islands  of 
the  West  Indies." 

*  Hakluyt,  Voyages,  iii,  pp.  209,  213;  Lescarbot,  Histoire  de  la  Nou- 
velle-France,  ii,  p.  350;  Kohl,  Documentary  History  of  Maine,  i,  pp. 
327,  330;  Douglas,  Old  France  in  the  New  World,  pp.  22,  23,  27,  28,  30; 
Robinson,  An  Account  of  Discoveries,  etc.,  p.  359.    Early  English  and 
French  Voyages,  chiefly  from  Hakluyt,  1534-1608,  in  Original  Narra- 
tives of  Early  American  History,  p.  81. 


72  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [324 

carry  away  another  chief,  Agona,  declared  that  the  king  of 
France  had  forbidden  him  to  bring  back  either  man  or  wo- 
man, and  permitted  him  to  bring  to  France  only  two  or  three 
little  boys  to  learn  the  language.1  But  these  pretended  in- 
structions did  not  prevent  Cartier  from  seizing  Taiguragui 
and  other  chiefs  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  them  to  France. 
On  the  outcry  of  the  Indians  against  such  an  act,  he  prom- 
ised that  the  chiefs  should  be  well  treated,  and  that  after 
visiting  France  for  the  purpose  of  telling  the  king  about 
the  land  of  Saguenay,  they  should  be  returned  to  their  own 
country  within  the  space  of  twelve  months.2 

On  his  setting  out  for  the  New  World  in  1562,  the  queen 
cf  France  commanded  Ribaut  to  bring  back  some  of  the 
natives.3  In  obedience  to  her  command,  Ribaut  attempted 
to  detain  two  of  the  natives  on  board  ship  to  carry  them  to 
France,  but  the  savages  managed  to  escape  and  swam  to 
shore.4 

1  Lescarbot,  Histoire  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  ii,  p.  364;  Douglas,  op. 
tit.,  pp.  39,  40,  42. 

2  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  363-367 ;  Kohl,  Documentary  History  of 
Maine,  i,  p.  336;  Douglas,  op.  cit,,  p.   37;   Robinson,  op.   cit.,  p.  369. 
Early  English  and  French   Voyages,  chiefly  from  Hakluyt,  1534-1608, 
in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  p.  81.     The  prom- 
ise of  Cartier  that  the  prisoners  should  be  well  treated  was  evidently 
kept.     In  the  archives  of  St.  Malo  for  the  year  1538,  is  noted  the  bap- 
tism of  three  savages  brought  there  by  Cartier.     Winsor,  Narrative 
and  Critical  History  of  America,  iv,  p.  57.     These  Ind'ans  were  ques- 
tioned by  Francis  I,   (Thevet,  Cosmographie  Universelle,  Tome  II,  p. 
1013),  and  thus  served  the  purpose  for  which  they  had  been  brought. 
They  never  returned  to  America,   for  all  of  them,   except  one  little 
girl,   died  in   Brittany  before   Cartier's  third  voyage  in    1540.     Kohl, 
Documentary  History  of  Maine,  i,  p.  342 ;  Robinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  406. 

8  Hakluyt,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  303-319;  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  44;  Narra- 
tive of  Jean  Ribaut's  Whole  and  True  Discovery  of  Terra  Florida, 
reprin'ed  in  Courtnay,  The  Genesis  of  South  Carolina,  p.  xxiv. 

4  Hakluyt,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  320,  says,  "by  permission  of  the  king"; 
Robinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  431. 


325]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  73 

Some  of  the  Indians  kidnapped  by  the  explorers  men- 
tioned were  slaves  only  in  a  modified  sense.  They  were 
not  put  to  servile  labor,  yet  they  were  deprived  of  their 
liberty  and  were  at  the  disposal  of  their  captors.  Some 
were  held  as  objects  of  curiosity.  Others  were  taken  for  a 
definite  purpose :  to  furnish  information  regarding  their 
native  country,  and  to  serve  as  interpreters  in  later  expedi- 
tions. For  such  a  reason  La  Harpe,  in  1719,  in  his  jour- 
ney in  the  southwest,  when  returning  to  the  coast,  resolved 
to  capture  some  of  the  Indians,  hoping  that  by  good  treat- 
ment he  might  induce  them  to  allow  him  to  settle  in  their 
country  and  to  carry  out  his  plans.  Under  the  pretence  of 
landing  to  obtain  water  for  his  ships,  he  seized  a  dozen  or 
more,  and  sailed  for  Mobile.1 

The  Indians  soon  became  suspicious  of  the  explorers  and 
traders,  especially  in  the  sections  where  more  than  one  of 
the  rival  races  carried  on  exploration  and  trade.  Such  a 
state  of  affairs  Du  Tisne  found  in  1719,  when  he  was  badly 
received  by  the  Pawnee  whom  the  Osage  had  told  that  his 
purpose  was  to  entrap  Indians  for  slaves.2 

The  great  purpose  of  the  French  in  the  new  world  was 
trade.  Their  expeditions,  excluding  those  of  the  mission- 
aries, were  commercial  in  nature.  With  them  gold  hunt- 
ing was  not  a  primary  consideration,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  Spaniards,  and  that  for  the  simple  reason  that  no  gold 
could  be  found.  Nor  were  they  seeking  a  refuge  from  per- 
secution like  the  English.  The  great  fur  trade  was  being 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  p.  74;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  pp.  282,  370,  371.  An 
instance  of  kidnapping  Indians  in  Canada  by  military  officials  is  worthy 
of  mention.  In  1687,  a  number  of  Iroquois  chiefs  went  to  a  French 
camp  near  Montreal,  on  the  invitation  of  the  French  officials,  to  con- 
fer with  ihe  governor  of  Canada.  The  intendant,  Champigny,  had 
these  chiefs  seized  and  by  the  king's  orders  sent  to  France  to  serve 
in  the  galleys.  Brodhead,  History  of  New  York,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  476. 

a  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  314. 


74  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [326 

developed  by  them.  This  trade  was  carried  on  with  the 
Indians,  and  in  all  sections  where  captives  in  war  or  kid- 
napped Indians  were  purchased  from  the  natives,  such  pur- 
chase was  usually  a  part  of  the  trade  in  furs. 

The  custom  of  purchasing  Indians  originated  with  the 
early  explorers  and  discoverers.  Sometimes  such  a  pur- 
chase was  made  for  a  purely  commercial  reason :  to  obtain 
a  slave  to  perform  some  certain  labor.  At  other  times  the 
buyer  was  moved  by  an  humanitarian  motive:  to  save  an 
Indian  from  torture  or  death  at  the  hands  of  his  captors. 
The  purchased  Indian  might  then  be  allowed  to  return  to 
his  own  tribe  and  be  retained  as  a  slave  at  the  will  of  his 
new  master.  In  1678,  Du  Lhut,  when  setting  out  from 
Montreal  on  his  travels  westward,  bought  an  Indian  to  act 
as  a  guide.1  Du  Tisne,  in  1719,  similarly  acquired  some 
slaves  from  a  chief  at  Natchitoches.2  In  1724,  de  Bourgmont 
purchased  a  considerable  number  of  slaves  from  the  Kansas 
tribe.  Mention  is  made  of  fifteen  at  one  time,  six  at  an- 
other.3 For  these  he  was  forced  to  pay  double  price,  as 
the  Indians  stated  that  the  year  before,  a  Frenchman  had 
given  such  a  price  to  a  party  of  Illinois  who  were  with 
them.4  Sometimes  the  slaves  obtained  by  these  explorers 
and  traders  were  used  in  their  own  expeditions.  At  other 
times,  they  were  sent  back  to  the  settlement  along  with  other 
merchandise.  De  Bourgmont  sent  some  of  those  whom  he 
purchased  back  to  New  Orleans.  La  Verendrye,  also,  in 
1731,  sent  back  slaves  to  the  French  settlements,  and  in 
writing  of  his  action  implied  that  he  thought  he  deserved 
much  credit  for  furnishing  the  colonists  with  slaves.5 

Until  well  into  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  29. 

1  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  315.  s  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  406. 

4  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  410.  *Ibid.,  vi,  p.  593. 


327]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  75 

Indian  slaves  were  held  by  the  settlers  of  Detroit,  who  ob- 
tained them  in  trade  with  friendly  Indians  who  in  turn 
took  them  in  war  with  the  Pawnee,  Osage,  Choctaw  and 
other  western  tribes.1  In  1741,  the  so-called  "  Nation  of 
the  Serpent "  entirely  destroyed  seventeen  villages,  killed 
all  the  men  and  older  women,  made  slaves  of  the  young 
women,  and  traded  them  for  horses  and  other  mer- 
chandise.2 A  report  to  the  home  government  in  1720, 
concerning  Natchitoches,  declared  that  the  most  extensive 
commerce  which  could  be  carried  on  with  the  Indians  of 
that  section,  would  be  in  slaves,  horses,  skins,  etc.s  An- 
other report  sent  by  La  Salle  told  of  the  Alabama  Indians 
bringing  twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  Mobile  Indian  wo- 
men and  children  into  the  colony,  and  disposing  of  them 
to  the  French.* 

The  friendly  and  allied  Indians  appreciated  the  results 
to  be  obtained  from  the  sale  of  their  captives  to  the  whites, 
and  not  only  sold  them  to  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  "  and 
other  traveling  traders,  but  took  them  directly  to  the  French 
settlement  for  sale,  as  is  shown  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 
Apparently  all  the  leading  French  settlements  afforded  a 
ready  market  for  such  slaves.  Mobile  furnishes  a  case  in 
point.  In  November,  1706,  a  party  of  Ouacha  arrived  in 
the  settlement  bringing  some  Abnaki  captives  for  sale.5  In 
the  same  month,  also,  some  Choctaw  brought  to  the  settle- 
ment Cahouita  and  Altamaha  captives  for  the  same  pur- 
pose.6 

1  Farmer,  The  History  of  Detroit  and  Michigan,  p.  344. 
*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  601. 

3  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  230;  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domina- 
tion,  Correspondance    Generate,    ix,    1720-1722,    p.    in;    Archives   du 
Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13,  vi,  p.  50. 

4  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13,  1707-1712,  p.  398. 

6  French,  op.  cit..  pt.  iii,  p.  36.  6  Ibid.,  pt.  iii,  p.  36. 


76  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [328 

It  was  the  Jesuit  and  French  missionaries  who  first  ad- 
vocated the  purchase  of  Indian  captives  by  the  traders,  in 
order  to  prevent  their  being  put  to  death.  By  putting  them 
in  a  mild  condition  of  servitude  they  hoped  to  place  them 
in  a  position  where  they  would  be  Christianized.1  Both 
Tonti 2  and  La  Salle  3  advised  such  a  course  of  action. 

The  colonists  favored  the  same  action  for  a  more  com- 
mercial reason.  The  French  of  Kaskaskia,  in  1708,  were 
urging  the  allied  Indians  to  war,  and  were  on  the  spot  to  ob- 
tain captives  to  sell  as  slaves  to  the  English.4  De  Vaudreuil, 
governor-general  of  Canada,  throughout  the  first  quarter 
of  the  eighteenth  century  was  urging  the  Abnaki  to  wage 
war  on  the  Illinois  to  obtain  slaves  for  him.5 

An  important  factor  in  the  French  colonial  trade  was 
the  "  coureurs  de  bois."  These  men,  having  cut  loose  from 
civilization,  wandered  at  will  among  the  Indians,  trading- 
tor  the  various  commodities  which  they  could  dispose  of 
in  the  settlements  of  either  the  French  or  English  colonies. 
One  of  these  commodities  was  Indian  slaves,  obtained  for 
the  most  part  from  the  tribes  who  had  captured  them  in  war. 
Judging  from  the  number  of  these  white  men  of  the  woods, 
their  unrestrained  life,  and  the  evidence  given  by  the  men 
of  the  time,  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  this  feature  of  colonial 
trade  produced  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Indian  slaves 

1  Carver,  Travels  through  the  Interior  Parts  of  North  America,  etc., 
P.  346. 

8  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  564. 

8  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  42;  A  Memoir  of  La  Salle  to  Frontenac, 
November  9,  1680,  states :  "  The  young  bisons  are  easily  tamed,  and 
may  be  of  great  help,  as  well  as  the  slaves  in  which  the  natives  are 
accustomed  to  trade."  Historical  Magazine,  v,  p.  197. 

4  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  476;  French,  op.  cit.,  new  series,  i,  p.  100; 
Hennepin,  A  New  Discovery,  etc.,  p.  631,  mentions  the  French  of 
Kaskaskia  using  both  negro  and  Indian  slaves. 

6  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  pp.  434,  436. 


329]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  77 

used  by  the  French.1  If  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  "  did  not 
find  a  sufficient  number  of  slaves  among  the  tribes  they 
visited,  they  not  infrequently  stirred  up  the  tribes  to  war, 
so  that  they  might  obtain  the  captives  for  sale.  On  July 
25,  1707,  La  Salle  wrote  from  Fort  Louis  to  the  Minister 
of  Marine  that  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  "  from  Canada  were 
thus  stirring  up  the  Indian  tribes  against  each  other,  in  or- 
der to  obtain  Indian  slaves  to  sell  in  Louisiana.2  The  work 
of  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  "  was,  however,  by  no  means 
limited  to  Louisiana,  but  extended  over  all  the  area  claimed 
by  the  French.  The  desire  of  the  English  for  Indian  slaves 
afforded  an  opportunity  for  profit  that  could  not  be  rejected. 
They  always  found  a  ready  market  for  their  Indian  slaves 
with  the  English  of  the  Carolina  country.  The  control  of 
the  French  officials  over  this  wandering  class  was  always 
slight,  and  since  there  was  practically  no  export  trade  in  In- 
dians to  be  had  in  Louisiana,  and  since  all  the  Indians 
whom  they  obtained  could  not  be  disposed  of  in  the  colony, 
they  turned  to  the  English  colonies  for  the  purpose. 

Some  effort  was  made  by  the  French  officials  to  prevent 
this  trade,  but  the  attempt  met  with  indifferent  success.  It 
was  not  the  traffic  in  human  beings  which  disturbed 
them,  but  the  fact  that  their  enemy,  the  English, 
were  profiting  by  the  transaction.  In  1714,  a  report  of 

1  Savoile  reported  from  Ft.  Biloxi,  August  4,  1701,  that  he  possessed 
some  slaves  from  the  territory  to  the  west  and  one  Illinois  slave,  who 
was  probably  a  runaway,  and  then  adds  that  the  French  "  voyageurs  " 
would  not  miss  this  one  runaway  since  they  had  so  many.    Mississippi 
Provincial   Archives,   French   Domination,    Correspondance    Generale, 
1678-1701,  i,  p.   152;  Archives  National's,  Colonies,  C.   13,  Louisiane. 
Correspondance  Generale,  1678-1708,  i,  p.  315. 

2  Archives   Nationales,   Colonies,    C.    12,    second   series,    Carton    I — 
Louisiane,   Correspondance   Generale,    1699-1773.     (Transcript   in    Mr. 
Peter  J.  Hamilton's  library)  ;  Charlevoix,  History  and  General  Descrip- 
tion of  New  France,  (Shea's  Translation),  vi,  p.  32. 


7g  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [330 

Cadillac  to  the  home  government  lamented  both  his  inabil- 
ity to  restrain  the  French  allied  Indians  from  trading  with 
the  English  in  slaves  and  other  commodities,  and  also  his 
embarrassment  at  not  being  able  to  prevent  the  French 
colonists  from  trading  with  the  English  in  skins  and  Indian 
slaves.1  Such  opposition,  however,  was  not  general  among 
the  French  colonial  officials.  Some  of  the  most  prominent 
ones  were  engaged  in  this  same  slave  trade  with  the  English, 
even  when  appearing  to  be  opposed  to  it.  In  1708.  Bien- 
ville  ordered  the  Canadian  French  to  cease  exciting  the  In- 
dians of  Kaskaskia  to  wage  war  on  each  other  to  obtain 
slaves  for  them.2  Yet,  in  the  same  year,  he  proposed,  since 
the  French  would  not  cultivate  the  land,  to  obtain  the  need- 
ful supply  of  labor  by  seizing  Indians  and  sending  them  to 
the  West  Indies  in  exchange  for  negroes.3  And  in  his  re- 
port to  the  home  government  mentioned  above,  Cadillac 
complained  of  the  selling  of  Indian  slaves  to  the  English  by 
Bienville.4  Such  transactions  by  the  French  officials  were 
carried  on  secretly.  The  Sieur  de  Ste.  Heleine,  nephew  of 
Bienville,  was  killed  by  the  English  allied  Indians  while  on 
such  an  expedition  to  sell  Indians  to  the  English  of  Caro- 
lina.5 

Some  opposition  to  the  trade  was  shown  by  the  Jesuits, 
since  the  hoped  for  result  of  having  numbers  of  slaves  to 
convert,  if  purchased  by  the  French,  did  not  materialize. 

1  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  1713-1714,  iv;  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13, 
1710-1712,  iii. 

2  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  476;  French,  op.  cit.,  new  series,  i,  p.  100. 
*  Kings  ford,  The  History  of  Canada,  iii,  p.  226. 

4  Ibid. 

6  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  1716,  vii,  p.  23;  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C. 
13,  iv,  p.  248. 


33 1  ]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  79 

Accordingly,  in  1693,  tnev  petitioned  the  governor  of 
Canada  to  prohibit  the  trade  in  Indian  slaves.  The  request 
was  granted  and  an  order  issued  to  that  effect,  but  without 
definite  result.  The  "  coureurs  de  bois "  continued  the 
trade  in  spite  of  the  penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment.1 

Certain  of  the  Indians  possessed  by  the  explorers  were 
gifts  from  Indian  chiefs.  On  his  second  voyage,  in  1535, 
the  chiefs  of  the  Saguenay  River  country  gave  Cartier  three 
children.2  Afterwards,  owing  to  mutual  suspicions  on  the 
part  of  the  French  and  Indians,  one  of  these  children  made 
her  escape.3  On  the  resumption  of  good  feeling,  the  In- 
dians promised  to  return  her.  Later,  another  chief  offered 
Cartier  two  children,  one  of  whom  was  accepted.* 

In  1564,  Laudonniere  led  an  expedition  to  the  region  of 
Florida.  Desiring  to  penetrate  into  the  interior  and  realiz- 
ing that  the  friendship  of  the  Indians  was  necessary  for 
such  an  attempt,  he  sought  to  obtain  from  an  Indian  chief 
two  of  his  prisoners,  whom  he  proposed  to  use  in  winning 
the  friendship  of  another  chief  by  presenting  them  to  him.5 
At  first,  the  chief  declined  to  give  away  the  prisoners ;  but, 
upon  Laudonniere's  renewing  his  request,  the  chief  yielded, 
the  prisoners  were  produced,  and  were  taken  back  by  the 
French  to  Fort  Carolina.6 

Champlain  desired  to  send  to  France  some  girls  to  have 

1  Carver,  Travels  through  the  Interior  Parts  of  North  America,  etc., 
P-  347- 

1  Robinson,  An  Account  of  Discoveries  in  the  West  until  1519,  etc., 
p.  369;  Early  English  and  French  Voyages,  chiefly  from  Hakluyt,  1534- 
1608,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History,  p.  50. 

'  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  352. 

4  Robinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  369;  Early  English  and  French  Voyages,  chiefly 
from  Hakluyt,   1534-1608,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American 
History,  p.  55. 

5  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  71 ;  Hakluyt,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  3IQ-349- 
•  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  745  Hakluyt,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  396. 


8o  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [332 

them  "  instructed  in  the  law  of  God  and  good  manners." 
An  opportunity  to  satisfy  this  desire  came  with  the  wish 
of  the  Montagnais  to  present  something  to  the  French 
traveler.  Three  girls  were  given  him,  whom  he  named 
Faith,  Hope  and  Charity,  and  whom  he  had  instructed  in 
religion,  domestic  work,  etc.1  Still  other  Indians  were 
taken  to  France  by  the  expedition.  One  of  the  sagamores 
of  the  Montagnais  gave  his  son  to  M.  du  Pont  for  that 
purpose.  Still  another  savage,  an  Iroquois  woman,  the 
Frenchman  begged  of  the  tribe  which  was  about  to  eat  her.2 
Other  and  similar  instances  of  obtaining  Indians  are  re- 
corded for  the  same  general  humanitarian  and  religious 
purpose.3 

The  Illinois  gave  Marquette  and  Jolliet  an  Indian  slave 
boy,  whom  Jolliet  took  with  him  when  going  to  Quebec, 
and  who  was  drowned  on  the  journey.4  The  Ottawa  gave 
Marquette  a  young  man,5  and  a  Kishkakon  chief  gave 
him  "  a  little  slave  he  had  brought  from  the  Illinois  a 

1  Sagard-Theodat,  Histoire  du  Canada  et  Voyages,  etc.,  new  edition, 
iv,  p.  829;  Le  Clercq,  The  First  Establishment  of  the  Faith  in  New 
France,  Shea's  translation,  i,  p.  283 ;  Douglas,  op.  cit.,  pp.  181,  195 ; 
Laverdiere,  Oeuvres  de  Champlain,  seconde  edition,  vi,  pp.  154-158. 

*  Purchas  His  Pilgrimes,  xviii,  p.  225 ;    Bourne,   The   Voyages  and 
Explorations  of  Samuel  de  Champlain,  etc.,  i,  p.  229. 

*  Bourne,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  226,  229;  Laverdiere,  op.  cit.,  seconde  edition, 
vi,  pp.   154-158;   Marshall,  Historical   Writings  Relating  to  the  Early 
History  of  the  West,  p.  22.     It  will  be  seen  that  these  Indians  were 
not  considered  as  slaves  by  Champlain.     They  were  to  be  educated 
and  trained  in  religious  duties  for  their  own  good,  for  that  of  the  faith 
and  the  future  good  of  the  French.     Yet  they  illustrate  the  readiness 
with  which  the  Indians  parted  with  members  of  their  own  tribe,  as 
well  as  with  those  whom  they  held  captive. 

4  Shea,   Discovery   and  Exploration    of   the   Mississippi    Valley,   pp. 
xxxii,  23;  Jesuit  Relations,  lix,  p.  121;  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iv,  p.  xxxii. 

5  Shea,  Discovery  and  Exploration  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  p.  Iv. 


333]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  8l 

few  months  before/'  In  the  same  manner,  Indians  were 
given  to  La  Salle  and  to  his  companion,  Tonti,  on  their 
expeditions.2  In  1699,  Father  Anastasius  accepted  from 
the  Indians  the  gift  of  an  Indian  girl  as  a  slave.3  In  1703, 
M.  de  Saint  Cosme,  a  missionary  priest  traveling  from 
Canada  to  Natchez,  possessed  in  his  party  a  young  Indian 
slave  boy.4 

When  Du  Lhut  was  in  Montreal  in  1678,  the  savages 
gave  him  three  slaves.5  At  another  time,  1684,  the  Indians 
wished  to  give  him  some  slaves  as  an  atonement  for  their 
having  murdered  some  Frenchmen.6  In  1700,  the  "  Man- 
tantons  "  (Mdewakanton),  at  a  feast  in  his  honor,  pre- 
sented Le  Sueur,  among  other  gifts,  with  an  Indian  slave. Tt 
In  1719,  La  Harpe,  on  his  journey  northwest  from  Natchi- 
toches,  was  given  a  young  Kansas  slave  by  the  chiefs  of  sev- 
eral nations  gathered  together.  One  of  the  chiefs  ex- 
pressed his  sorrow  that  he  had  but  one  slave  to  give,  and 
La  Harpe,  in  his  letter  to  Terrisse,  regrets  that  he  did  not 
arrive  sooner,  and  by  receiving  them  as  slaves,  prevent  the 
seventeen  companions  of  his  slave  from  being  eaten.8 

The  Indians  realized  that  the  trade  in  captive  slaves  was 
profitable.  When,  in  1724,  the  Kansas  tribe  charged 
de  Bourgmont  double  price  for  slaves  sold  him,  they 
feared  that  he  would  be  angry  at  the  price  asked,  and  that 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iv,  p.  li. 

2  Ibid.,  pt.  iv,  p.  169;  pt.  i,  pp.  71,  72,  74;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  98; 
Joutel,  Journal  of  La  Salle' s  Last  Voyage,  p.  118. 

3  French,  op.  cit.,  series  2,  p.  100. 

4  Ibid.,  new  series,  p.  84;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  433. 

5  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  21. 

6  Ibid.,  vi,  pp.  47,  48. 

7  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  192. 

8  French,  op.  cit.,  p.  74;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  pp.  282,  370,  3?" 


82  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [334 

in  consequence  they  would  lose  future  trade.  So  they  pre- 
sented him  with  five  slaves  as  a  gift.1 

Throughout  history  the  children  of  slave  mothers  have 
generally  been  considered  slaves.  A  report  on  the  condi- 
tion of  Louisiana,  1716,  declared  that  the  inhabitants  were 
accustomed  to  sell  the  children  of  their  Indian  female 
slaves.2  Later,  in  1724,  a  royal  decree  provided  that  chil- 
dren born  of  marriages  between  slaves  should  be  slaves, 
and  should  belong  to  the  masters  of  their  mothers,,  and  not 
to  the  masters  of  their  fathers,  if  father  and  mother  should 
belong  to  different  masters.3 

The  uses  to  which  Indian  slaves  were  put,  either  in  early 
or  later  colonial  times,  were  determined  by  economic  con- 
ditions. Among  the  explorers,  the  need  for  guides  and 
interpreters  was  imperative,  and  one  finds  the  French,  like 
the  Spanish,  using  Indian  slaves  for  this  purpose.  On  his 
second  expedition,  Cartier  made  such  use  of  the  Indian 
children  whom  he  carried  to  France  on  his  first  expedition.4 
Laudonniere,  in  1564,  intended  to  use  slaves  for  this  pur- 
pose.5 Du  Lhut  purchased  a  slave  to  act  as  guide.6  The 
Mallet  expedition,  in  1739,  used  a  slave  as  guide.7  One  of 
the  slaves  purchased  by  de  Bourgmont  on  his  expedition  in 
1724,  was  retained  with  the  expedition  as  interpreter,  and 
was  taught  French  by  de  Bourgmont  himself.8  Doubtless 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  407. 

3  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  1716,  vi,  p.  355. 

3  Le  Code  Noir,  Article  IX. 

4  Rob'nson,  op.  cit.,  p.  363. 

5  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  74. 

6  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  21. 

7  Ibid.,  vi,'p.  458. 

8  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  417. 


3351  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  83 

the  instances  might  be  multiplied  if  the  records  were  com- 
plete, though  it  is  not  likely  that  enslaved  Indians  were 
used  for  this  purpose  to  the  same  extent  as  the  friendly 
allied  or  converted  Indians.1 

The  French  never  sent  out  any  great  expeditions  like 
those  of  the  Spaniards.  Hence  among  the  explorers  the 
use  of  slaves  as  domestics  was  limited.  Among  the  colon- 
ists, one  finds  Le  Page  du  Pratz,  on  his  arrival  in  Louisiana, 
buying  an  Indian  woman  to  act  as  cook  and  interpreter.2 
The  early  Louisiana  colonists  experienced  the  need  for  ser- 
vants, and,  May  26,  1700,  expressed  the  hope  that  the  In- 
dians would  supply  such  need.3  The  life  of  the  Illinois 
colonist  was  less  luxurious  than  that  of  the  inhabitant  of 
Louisiana;  in  consequence,  the  need  of  slaves  in  household 
service  was  less. 

Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  life  among  the  French 
of  Louisiana,  both  rich  and  poor,  was  quite  licentious,4  and 
one  of  the  means  of  fostering  this  life  was  the  use  of  In- 
dian women,  slave  and  free.  The  demoralization  result- 
ing from  such  a  condition  attracted  attention,  and  in  1709 
it  was  urged  that  girls  suitable  for  wives  be  sent  over  in 
order  "  to  prevent  these  disorders  and  debaucheries."  5 

Agricultural  pursuits  appear  to  have  been  the  chief  labor 
to  which  the  French  put  Indian  slaves.  Such  pursuits, 
along  with  trading,  formed  the  chief  industry  of  the 

1  As  in  the  case  of  the  Spaniards,  not  all  the  Indians  who  accom- 
panied the  French  exploring  parties  were  slaves.  Many  of  them  were 
hired.  Others  were  sent  by  their  chiefs.  Some  went  voluntarily. 

1  Le  Page  du  Pratz,  The  History  of  Louisiana,  etc.,  p.  20. 

3  Correspondance  Generate,  1678-1706.    Tome  2,  p.  328.    A  memoir  in 
the  possession  of  the  Louisiana  Historical  Society. 

4  The  Present  State  of  the  Country  and  Inhabitants,  European  and 
Indians  of  Louisiana  on  the  North  Continent  of  America,  p.  12. 

6  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13,  1707-1712,  p.  398. 


84  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [336 

colonies.1  But  it  was  the  general  tendency  of  the  French 
to  prefer  the  novelty  and  excitement  of  the  trader's  life, 
rather  than  the  more  quiet  existence  of  the  agriculturalist. 
Bienville  complained  much  of  this  state  of  affairs,  and 
sought  to  remedy  it.2  The  consequence  of  this  tendency 
was  to  make  the  price  of  labor  high,3  and  the  use  of  Indian 
slaves  was  a  means  at  hand  to  solve  the  difficulty.  In  the 
simpler  life  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Illinois  country,  agri- 
culture was  the  chief  industry  of  the  settlers  until  the  close 
of  the  period  under  discussion.4  And  the  farmers  increased 
the  results  of  their  industry  by  the  extensive  use  of  Indian 
slaves.5 

Throughout  the  French  territory  in  the  military  stations, 
both  soldiers  and  frontiersmen  found  use  for  their  Indian 
women  slaves  as  cooks  and  in  performing  the  other  do- 
mestic labors  of  fort  and  camp.6  The  male  slaves  were 
used  in  erecting  fortifications,  performing  other  heavy 
labor,  and  as  guides  in  military  expeditions.7 

The  custom  of  using  Indian  slaves  as  a  bribe  or  reward 
was  common.  In  either  case  the  purpose  of  the  whites 

1  Pittman,   The  Present  State  of  the  European  Settlements  on  the 
Mississippi,  etc.,  Hodder  edition,  p.  102;  Hamilton,  Colonial  Mobile,  p. 
67;  Monette,  History  of  the  Discovery  and  Settlement  of  the   Valley 
of  the  Mississippi,  i,  p.   192;   Gayarre,  History  of  Louisiana,  French 
Domination,  i,  p.  242;  Thwaites,  Early  Western  Travels,  xxvii,  p.  55; 
Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  145 ;  Martin,  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  173. 

2  Guenin,  La  Louisiane,  p.  297. 

8  Pittman,  op.  cit.,  Hodder  edition,  p.  102. 

*  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  145. 

8  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  332. 

6  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  iv,  1713-1714,  p.   14;  Notes  et  Documents  Historiques 
de  la  Louisiane,  p.  29. 

7  Bossu,  op.  cit.,  p.  114;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  112. 


337]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  85 

was  the  same :  to  procure  the  friendship  and  alliance  of  the 
tribes.  In  the  northwest  the  French  demanded  that  cer- 
tain subdued  tribes  bring  them  Indian  slaves,  which  they 
might  use  to  replace  the  members  of  the  allied  tribes  whom 
the  conquered  tribes  had  killed  during  the  war.1  In  the 
area  where  the  claims  of  the  European  nations  overlapped, 
alliance  of  the  tribes  was  especially  desired  by  each  nation. 
These  Indian  captive  slaves  or  slaves  purchased  from  other 
tribes  were  often  returned  to  their  own  tribes  as  a  peace 
offering  or  as  a  token  of  friendship.  Thus  the  alliance 
of  the  tribes  was  won,  and  a  barrier  created  against  the 
encroachments  of  the  Spanish  and  the  English.2  Such  use 

1  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  pp.  378,  379,  454. 

2  Margry,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  293.    The  only  instance  in  wh'ch  a  home  gov- 
ernment demanded  that  Indians  be  sent  to  Europe  to  perform  ac'ual 
labor  as  slaves,  exists  in  the  case  of  the  French.     On  July  31,  1684, 
Louis  XIV   ordered   de   la   Barre  to   send   all   Iroquois   prisoners   to 
France  to  serve  in  the  galleys,  because,  said  the  letters  royal,  "these 
savages  are  strong  and  robust."     Brodhead,  History  of  New  York,  first 
edition,    ii,    p.    476.     De    la    Barre    made    an    expedition    against    the 
Iroquois,  but  was  unsuccessful.      In   1687,  Denonville,  the  succeeding 
governor-general,  led  another  expedition  against  the  Iroquois  who  had 
been  especially  arrogant  toward  the  French  since  the  repulse  of  de  la 
Barre.     Before  the  expedition  had  set  out  from  Fort  Frontenac,  an- 
other dispatch  from  the  king  had  arrived.     This  repeated  his  former 
orders  to  send  the  Iroquois  prisoners  to  France  to  serve  in  the  galleys. 
Denonville  obeyed  the  command.     Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  507.     The 
order  was  repeated  March,  1688,  declaring  "  It  is  certain  that  those 
Indians,   who   are   vigorous   and    accustomed   to   hardship,   can    serve 
usefully  on  board  his  Majesty's  galleys,"  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  546. 
Continued   difficulties  with  the  Indians  led   Denonville,   among  other 
concessions  and  attempts  at  conciliation,  to   write  to  France,  asking 
that  as  many  of  the  Indian  galley  slaves  as  survived  should  be  returned 
to  Canada,  and  suggesting  that,  to  produce  as  good  an  effect  as  pos- 
sible,   they    be    decently    clothed.     The    request    was    complied    with. 
Marshall,   Historical    Writings  relating   to   the   early   History   of   the 
West,  p.   159;   De  Brumath,  Bishop  Laval,  pp.  214,  215,  216.     For  a 
description  of  the  French  galleys  of  the  time,  see  Clement,   Vie  de 
Colbert,  p.  456. 


86  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [338 

was  made  of  slaves  by  de  Bourgmont,  in  1724,  in  the  Kan- 
sas country.  With  a  messenger  sent  from  there  to  the 
Comanche,  he  sent  also  two  Comanche  slaves  whom  he  pur- 
chased from  the  Kansas  in  order  that  his  messenger  be  well 
received.1  He  also  purchased  some  Padouca  slaves  in 
order  to  return  them  to  their  people.2 

In  1728,  the  king  of  France  issued  an  edict  regarding  cer- 
tain concessions  of  land,  and  required  a  tax  of  five  livres 
on  each  slave,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  to  be  used  in 
building  churches  and  hospitals.8  Thus  the  Indian  slaves, 
along  with  the  negroes,  served  as  a  property  basis  in  this 
one  instance,  as  they  did  many  times  in  the  English  colonies 
They  were  also  regarded  as  property  in  all  legal  and  busi- 
ness transactions  and  were  classed  along  with  negroes,  do- 
mestic animals  and  real  estate,  which  could  be  sold  to  satisfy 
their  owners'  debts.4 

The  early  slavery  among  the  French  was  mild  in  nature.5 
The  system  was  of  a  patriarchal  type.  The  Indian  slaves 
often  worked  along  with  their  owners,  especially  those  en- 
gaged in  agricultural  labor,  and  were  treated  as  children 
who  must  be  guided,  directed,  punished  or  rewarded  by 
their  superiors.  Cramoisy,  writing  of  Bienville's  expedi- 
tion of  1737,  states  that  a  Chickasaw  slave  who  acted  as 
guide,  had  belonged  to  his  owner  five  years  and  was  always 
treated  as  one  of  the  family.6  A  French  settler  in  the  Fox 

1  Parkman,  A  Half-Century  of  Conflict,  ii,  p.  17. 

*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  402. 

8  Arkansas  Historical  Society  Publications,  ii,  p.  342. 

*  Hamilton,  Slavery  in  Canada,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  In- 
stitute, 1890,  i,  p.  103. 

5  See  Hinsdale,   The   Old  Northwest,  etc.,   revised   edition,   p.   347; 
Monette,  op.  cit.,  pp.  199-200;  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections, 
1856,  iii,  pp.  256  et  seq. 

6  Cramoisy,  Journal  de  la  Guerre  du  Micissippi  contre  les  Chitachas, 
P-  53- 


339]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  87 

Valley  is  spoken  of  as  living  with  his  Pawnee  slaves  in 
feudal  style.1 

The  relation  of  the  French  and  the  Indians,  bond  or  free, 
was  always  different  from  that  existing  between  the  Eng- 
lish and  the  Indians.  The  Frenchman  never  looked  upon 
the  Indians  with  the  disdain  and  contempt  for  an  inferior 
race  which  was  displayed  by  the  English.  Marriage  be- 
tween French  and  Indians  was  common.  The  social  re- 
sult of  this  close  connection  was  more  pronounced  in  case 
of  the  Frenchman  than  in  that  of  the  Indian.  It  meant 
the  "  Indianizing  "  of  the  Frenchman,  or  the  bringing  him 
to  the  social  level  and  to  the  life  and  habits  of  the  red  man. 
The  most  striking  result  of  this  tendency  was  supplied  by 
the  "  coureur  de  bois ;"  but  the  same  result  was  apparent 
even  in  the  case  of  the  superior  colonists  of  lower  Louisi- 
ana. And  to  this  result  the  Indian  slave  contributed  in  a 
measure.  The  lack  of  social  distinction  between  French- 
man and  native  tended  toward  kind  treatment  on  the  part 
of  the  owner,  and  to  a  shifting  of  the  social  planes  of  mas- 
ter and  slave  toward  that  of  equality.  Yet  instances  of 
cruelty  to  slaves  are  not  lacking.  The  punishments  of  the 
age  were  cruel,  whether  the  offender  was  bond  or  free.2 

It  has  been  said  that  the  dominating  feature  of  French 
colonial  life  was  trade.  But  religious  and  commercial  ad- 
vancement went  hand  in  hand.  From  the  earliest  arrival 
of  the  French,  the  missionary  labors  of  the  Church  ex- 
tended not  only  to  the  Indian  tribes,  but  also  to  the  negro 
and  Indian  slaves  held  by  the  colonists.  The  conversion 
of  the  Indian  was  an  asset  for  the  growth  of  trade.  French 

1  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  xlvi,  p.  141. 

*  Bienville  ordered  one  of  the  Indian  prisoners,  who  had  assisted  in 
the  murder  of  St.  Cosme,  to  be  placed  on  a  wooden  horse,  and  his 
brains  to  be  beaten  out  with  a  club.  His  scalp  was  then  cut  off, 
and  his  body  thrown  into  the  river. 


88  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [340 

commissions,  as  well  as  Spanish,  provided  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Indians.1  Priest  and  friar  were  everywhere 
present  Each  Christianized  Indian  slave  marked  a  gain  in 
the  advancement  of  the  faith,  and  made  possible  a  readier 
access  to  trade  with  the  convert's  tribe  and  those  of  his 
friends.2  But  the  religious  training  and  teaching  of  slaves 
were  not  entirely  a  matter  of  policy.  It  was  rather  a  part 
of  the  generally  kind  treatment  of  the  master.  The  rites 
of  the  Church  were  commonly  accorded  them.  The  Louis- 
iana church  records  certain  accounts  of  the  birth,  baptism, 
marriage  and  burial  of  Indian  slaves.3  The  Mobile  and 
New  Orleans  registers  are  similar  to  the  church  registers 
to  be  found  throughout  Lower  Canada  wherever  a  church 
was  established.  The  parish  registers  of  Levis,  Quebec  and 
Long  Point  are  cases  in  point.  Throughout  the  first  and 
part  of  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  these 
registers  show  that  Indian  slaves,  many  of  whom,  in  Quebec 
for  instance,  were  brought  from  Louisiana,  were  baptized, 

1  Parkman,  The  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World,  pp.  217,  244. 

1  Lescarbot,  op.  cit.,  in,  p.  612 ;  Parkman,  The  Pioneers  of  France  in 
the  New  World,  p.  279;  Marshall,  op.  cit.,  p.  127. 

3  The  following  records  are  from  a  transcript  in  the  library  of 
Tulane  University. 

1724,  Feb.  4,  est  ne  un  fils  d'une  esclave  Indienne  appt — le  pere  est 
inconnu.  (p.  26). 

1724,  May  2 — autre  fois  esclave  de  la  nation  des  Panis  marie  avec 
Francarte  de  la  nation  de  Chat — (p.  33). 

1728,  Sept.    13 — ai   inhume  dans   la  cimetiere   de   cette   paroisse — le 
corps  de  sauvagesse  apport  a — (p.  280). 

1729,  Feb.  26 — ai  baptise — sauvage  appt.  a  M.  Roquet,  (p.  371). 

1729,  June  20 — ai  baptise — sauvage  appt.  a  M.  Villevalle  (p.  389). 

1730,  Janvier  30 — ai  inhume  dans  la  cimetiere  de  cette  paroisse  avec 
les  ceremonies  ordinaires  de  1'eglise,  le  corps  de  Jean  Baptise,  sauvage, 
age  de  deux  ans,  appt.  a  M.  de  Ste.  Cheuse  (p.  424). 

au  fay  de  quoy  j'ai  signe, 

Fr.  Hyacueltre. 


34 1  ]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  89 

and  then  records  kept  of  such  baptisms  as  in  the  case  of  the 
whites.1  The  church  records  of  Kaskaskia 2  and  Vin- 
cennes  3  make  frequent  mention  of  the  birth,  baptism  and 
death  of  Indian  slaves  (called  Panis)  down  to  the  time  of 
British  occupation;  but  from  that  time  they  became  more 
and  more  infrequent  as  Indian  slavery  gradually  gave  way 
to  negro  slavery.  The  baptismal  register  of  Mobile,  Ala- 
bama, dating  from  1704  to  1740,  contains  baptismal  records 
of  whites,  blacks  and  Indians.  From  the  register  it  ap- 
pears that  witnesses  to  the  baptism  of  a  slave  were  not  con- 
sidered necessary,  though  sometimes  used.  In  some  in- 
stances the  person  baptized  is  recorded  as  the  slave  of  a 
certain  person.  In  other  cases  he  is  mentioned  as  a  slave, 
and  the  owner's  name  is  not  given.  The  earliest  baptism  of 
an  Indian  slave  in  this  record  is  that  of  a  fifteen-year-old 
slave  of  Iberville.  Baptisms  of  Indian  slaves  are  quite  as 
frequent  as  those  of  negro  slaves.  February  8,  1734,  is 
the  latest  date  of  Indian  slave  baptisms  in  the  register. 
Some  of  these  Indian  slaves  are  recorded  as  legitimate  chil- 
dren of  slave  parents.4 

The  laws  of  France  did  not  permit  the  holding  of  any 
Christian  in  slavery.  This  meant  that  the  conversion  of 
Indians  or  other  slaves  would  confer  freedom  upon  them.5 

1  Tanguay,  A  Travers  les  Registres,  pp.  88,  in,  157  (instances  cited). 

2  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixx,  p.  232. 

8  Dunn,  Indiana,  p.  127.  Parkman  Club  Papers,  p.  210,  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  marriage  of  two  Indian  slaves  in  1754.  About  1750  half 
the  baptisms  and  marriages  recorded  in  the  church  register  of  Vin- 
cennes  were  "  red  or  Indian  slaves,"  belonging  to  the  commandant  or  to 
the  inhabitants.  Law,  The  General  History  of  Vincennes,  etc.,  p.  145. 

4  This  register  is  now  kept  in  the  Mobile  cathedral  under  the  care  of 
the  Bishop  of  Mobile     It  was  presented  for  examination  through  the 
kindness  of  Father  Hacket. 

5  Margry,  op.  fit.,  iii,  p.  66;  Godwyn,  The  Negro  and  Indian's  Advo- 
cate,  etc.,   p.   30.        When   arrangements    for   an   expedition   to    New 


90  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [342 

But  the  law  was  never  enforced.  The  French  clergy  went 
on  continuously  with  their  work  of  converting,  baptizing 
and  teaching  both  bond  and  free;  and  in  the  "  Code  Noir  " 
of  1724,  Louis  XV  commanded  that  all  slaves  in  the  French 
colonies,  "  be  educated  in  the  Apostolic  Roman  Catholic  re- 
ligion, and  be  baptized,"  and  enjoined  their  owners  to  have 
these  matters  attended  to  within  a  reasonable  time.1  The 
code  dealt  directly  with  negro  slaves,  but  the  Indian  slaves 
still  in  existence  were  necessarily  included  in  its  provisions. 
In  Louisiana  Indian  slavery  began  with  the  founding  of 
the  colony.  A  report  of  the  colony  written  in  1704,  states 
that  at  Fort  Louis  de  Louisiane,  having  a  white  population 
of  1 80  soldiers  and  27  French  families  numbering  64  per- 
sons, (a  total  of  244  white  persons),  there  were  six  Indian 
boy  slaves  from  twelve  to  eighteen  years  of  age,  and  five 
Indian  girl  slaves  from  fifteen  to  twenty  years  of  age.2  In 
1708,  the  colony  consisted  of  fourteen  officers,  seventy-six 
soldiers,  thirteen  sailors,  three  priests,  six  mechanics,  one 
Indian  interpreter,  twenty-four  laborers,  twenty-eight  wo- 
men, twenty-five  children,  (a  total  of  190  free  persons), 
and  eighty  Indian  slaves.3  In  1713,  besides  the  soldiers, 
there  were  twenty-eight  families,  twenty  negroes  and  a  few 
Indian  women  and  children.*  The  following  statistics  are 

Biscay  were  being  made,  a  memorial  on  America,  February,  1684, 
called  attention  to  this  state  of  affairs,  and  urged  the  king  to  enforce 
it  in  order  to  attract  to  the  side  of  the  French  the  numerous  negro, 
Indian  and  mulatto  slaves  of  that  country.  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  66. 

1  Fortier,  A  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  87. 

2  Archives  Nationales,   Colonies,    C.    13,   Louisiane,    Correspondence 
General e,  1673-1706,  i,  p.  168. 

8  French,  Historical  Collections  of  Louisiana  and  Florida,  new  series, 
i>  P-  99)  Pickett,  History  of  Alabama,  etc.,  p.  179. 

*  Martin,  The  History  of  Louisiana  from  the  Earliest  Period,  i,  p. 
173- 


343]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  91 

given  in  the  archives  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Colonies  in 
Paris : x 

Census  of  New  Orleans,  November  24,  1721.  Recapitu- 
lation :  Men,  446;  Women,  140;  Children,  96;  Negro  slaves, 
523;  Indian  slaves,  51. 

Census  of  New  Orleans  in  1723.  Recapitulation:  Men, 
bearing  arms,  229;  Women  or  girls,  169;  Children,  183; 
Orphans,  45 ;  Slaves,  267. 

General  census  of  the  Colony  of  Louisiana  on  January  i, 
1726.  Recapitulation:  Masters,  1952;  Hired  men  and  ser- 
vants, 276;  Negro  slaves,  1540;  Indian  slaves,  229. 

General  census  of  the  Department  of  New  Orleans  on 
July  i,  1727.  Recapitulation: 

Masters  Hired         Negroes    Savage 

New  Orleans   729  65  127  17 

The  Bayou  and  Chantilly  42  5  73  5 

Inhabitants  up  the  River  on  the  Right  243  26  883  45 

Idem  on  the  Left  306  35  456  5 

On  the  Shore  of  Lake  Ponchartrain. .       7  2  14 

On  Bayou  Tauchpao  2  5  8  i 

Total 1329  138  1561  73 

From  these  statistics  it  will  be  seen  that  in  Louisiana  the 
negro  slaves  far  outnumbered  the  Indian  slaves,  and  that 
the  ratio  of  the  number  of  Indian  slaves  to  the  number  of 
whites  in  the  colony  was  very  small.  A  memoir  concern- 
ing Natchitoches,  1720  or  1721,  states  that  the  number  of 
black  slaves  in  that  settlement  was  thirty-four,  and  the 
number  of  Indian  slaves,  six  (two  men  and  four  women).2 
A  report  on  the  condition  of  Louisiana  at  large  in  1744  de- 
clared that  there  were  very  few  Indian  slaves  in  the  colony, 

1  Quoted  in  Fortier,  A  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  101. 

1  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  231 ;  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French 
Domination,  Correspondance  Generate,  ix,  p.  12;  Archives  du  Ministre 
des  Colonies,  C  13,  vi,  p.  51. 


92  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [344 

"  because  we  are  at  peace  with  all  nations :  these  we  have 
were  taken  in  former  wars,  and  we  keep  them."  x  Another 
account,  in  1750,  states  that  the  inhabitants  of  New  Orleans 
consist  of  "  French,  Negroes,  and  some  savages  who  are 
slaves — all  these  together  do  not  number  .  .  .  more  than 
1,200  persons."  2 

The  smallness  of  the  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  Louis- 
iana appears  due  to  several  reasons :  the  generally  friendly 
relations  of  the  French  and  the  neighboring  tribes ;  the  ab- 
sence of  extensive  agriculture  at  an  early  date;  the  neglect 
of  the  colonial  authorities  to  develop  a  trade  in  savage 
slaves,  like  that  of  Carolina;  and  the  rapid  increase  in  the 
importation  of  negro  slaves  by  the  time  that  occupations 
profitable  for  slave  labor  were  developed. 

In  the  northern  part  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  also,  In- 
dian slavery  began  with  the  coming  of  the  whites.  Slavery 
at  Vincennes  and  in  the  country  below  the  present  site  of 
Terre  Haute,  Indiana,  was  regulated  by  the  laws  of  Louis- 
iana. That  in  the  country  to  the  north  was  regulated  by 
the  customs  of  Canada.  Indian  slavery  in  Canada  began 
early.  Record  exists  of  Indian  slaves  in  Montreal  in  1670* 
In  Louisiana  the  greater  number  of  slaves  were  negroes; 
whereas  in  Canada  the  larger  portion  were  Indians.4  In 
the  early  history  of  Vincennes  most  of  the  slaves  were  In- 
dians, for  the  inhabitants  were  more  extensively  engaged  in 
the  Indian  trade  than  in  agricultural  pursuits.  The  same 
was  true  of  the  country  about  Detroit.  Some  of  these 

1  The  Present  State  of  the  Country  and  Inhabitants,  European  and 
Indians  of  Louisiana  on  the  North  Continent  of  America,  etc.,  p.  26. 

3  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  211. 

*  Smith,  Slavery  in  Canada,  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, 1896-1898,  x,  p.  3. 

4  Dunn,  Indiana,  p.  126. 


345]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  93 

Indians  went,  of  course,  to  Louisiana;  but  the  larger  por- 
tion went  to  Canada.  A  report  in  1750  shows  that  in  the 
five  French  villages  of  the  Illinois  country  there  were 
eleven  hundred  whites,  three  hundred  blacks  and  sixty  In- 
dian slaves.1  Indian  slavery,  already  giving  way  to  negro 
slavery,  continued  so  to  do  after  British  occupation. 

Indian  slaves,  mostly  children,  are  recorded  in  Detroit 
in  17 io,2  17 I2,3  and.  1715.*  Their  use  continued  there 
until  the  English  occupation.  A  report  in  1733  shows  the 
Canadians  trading  in  Indian  slaves  whom  they  seized  or 
purchased  from  other  Indians.5  By  the  terms  of  the  sur- 
render of  Montreal,  1760,  already  mentioned,  the  English 
guaranteed  to  the  settlers  all  the  rights  in  property  they  had 
enjoyed,  and  Article  IV  of  the  capitulation  provided  that 
all  negro  and  Pawnee  slaves  should  remain  in  their  condi- 
tion of  servitude.6  In  1763,  the  population  of  Canada  com- 
prised about  70,000  Europeans,  30,000  Indians  and  400 
black  slaves.7  It  will  be  seen  that  the  number  of  negro 

1  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  145 ;  Hinsdale,  The  Old  Northwest,  etc., 
P-  347- 
J  Burton,  Cadillac's  Village,  or  Detroit  under  Cadillac,  p.  34. 

3  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  xvi,  p.  295. 

4  Ibid.,  xvi,  p.  340. 

5  Beauharnois  et  Hocquart  au  Ministre.    Quoted  in  Salone,  La  Colo- 
nisation de  la  Nouvelle-France,  deuxieme  edition,  p.  353. 

6  Memoires   et   Documents  Relatifs  a   I'Histoire   du   Canada,   pub- 
lished   by   the    Montreal    Historical    Society,    pp.    8-9.      Records    fol- 
lowing   that    time    show    Pawnee    slaves    still    in    existence    down 
to   1827,    Wisconsin  Historical   Society   Collections,   vii,   pp.    158,    177, 
179;   xi,   p.   393;   xii,   p.  94;   Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society   Collec- 
tions, 1896-1898,  x,  p.  3.     In  the  Niagara  Herald  several  advertisements 
are  found  relating  to  Indian  slaves.     One  of  August  25,  1802,  forbids 
all  persons  harboring  a  runaway  Indian  slave.     So  in  the  Gazette  and 
Oracle,  early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  advertisements  refer  to  Indian 
slaves  or  "  Pawnees." 

7  Rambaut,  A  Sketch  of  the  Constitutional  History  of  Canada,  p.  28. 


94  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [346 

slaves  was  very  small  as  compared  with  the  number  in 
Louisiana.  And,  judging  from  the  frequent  mention  of 
Indian  slaves  in  the  parish  records,1  and  the  not  inconsid- 
erable trade  in  such  slaves  that  went  on  with  the  western 
tribes,  one  may  concede  the  truth  of  the  assertion  that  the 
number  of  Indian  slaves  in  that  territory,  under  Canadian 
law,  exceeded  the  number  of  negro  slaves,  even  though,  in 
proportion  to  the  white  population,  the  number  was  small. 
In  the  French  colonies,  the  earliest  method  of  manu- 
mission was  to  grant  slaves  their  freedom  verbally 
and  without  further  formality.  In  the  Wisconsin  coun- 
try, during  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
at  least,  there  appears  to  have  been  some  requirement 
or  obligation,  perhaps  imposed  by  custom,  for  the  owners 
of  Indian  slaves  to  free  them  after  a  certain  period  of  servi- 
tude.2 But  on  April  II,  1735,  a  memorandum  of  the  king  to 
de  Beauharnois  and  Hocquart  declared  that  the  judges  of 
the  colonies  might  conform  themselves  to  the  custom  of 
considering  the  Indians  held  in  servitude  as  slaves,  and  that 
masters  who  might  wish  to  grant  such  Indians  their  free- 
dom should  do  so  by  notarial  deed.3  Accordingly,  on  Sep- 
tember i,  1736,  an  ordinance  was  issued  at  Quebec  by  Hoc- 
quart,  the  intendant,  stating,  with  the  consent  of  the  Mar- 
quis de  Beauharnois,  governor  and  lieutenant-general  of 
the  colony,  that  anyone  wishing  to  free  any  slave  must 
make  affirmation  to  that  effect  before  a  notary,  to  which  he 
would  be  held.  The  act  would  be  registered  in  the  "greffe" 

1  Smith,  Slavery  in  Canada,  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, 1896-1898,  x,  p.  3. 

3  Grignon,  Recollections,  in  Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections, 
1856,  iii,  pp.  256-258,  mentions  several  such  instances. 

*  Report  Concerning  Canadian  Archives,  1904,  pt.  ii,  p.  211. 


347]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  95 

of  the  nearest  royal   jurisdiction.      A  manumission  per- 
formed in  any  other  way  was  declared  null  and  void.1 

As  above  stated,  it  was  customary  for  the  French  colon- 
ists to  sell  the  children  of  their  female  slaves.2  The  prac- 
tice might,  and  did,  mean  that  a  father  sold  his  own  child. 
Notice  of  the  matter  having  been  called  to  the  attention  of 
the  king,  an  attempt  was  made  to  prevent  the  practice  by 
inserting  in  the  instructions  sent  to  the  colony  in  1721-1722, 
a  provison  forbidding  the  sale  of  either  a  female  negro  or 
Indian  slave  or  her  child,  if  a  free  colonist  were  the  father 
of  such  a  child.  The  same  instructions  further  declared  it 
in  harmony  with  religion  and  the  welfare  of  the  colony 
that  at  the  end  of  a  certain  period  of  time  both  mother  and 
child  should  be  given  their  liberty,  and  so  be  made  free  in- 
habitants of  the  colony.3  Such  a  kindly  attitude  on  the  part 
of  the  home  government  met  with  but  little  response  in  the 
colonies. 

1  Memoires  et  Documents  Relatifs  a  I'Histoire  du  Canada,  pp.  5-6. 

An  interesting  example  of  such  manumission  is  recorded  in  Louis- 
iana in  1770.  On  April  30th  of  that  year,  the  Sieur  Pierre  Clermont 
appeared  before  the  notary  of  the  Cabildo  and  declared  that  he  had 
had  for  a  long  time  in  his  service  an  Indian,  Louison,  of  the  nation  of 
the  "  Sious."  The  latter  had  served  him  with  so  much  attachment 
and  zeal  that  he  desired  to  reward  him,  and  believed  that  the  best 
way  to  do  so  was  to  give  him  his  freedom.  As,  however,  he  had  an 
indispensable  need  for  the  Indian  for  three  years  longer,  and  feared 
that  he  might  be  prevented  by  death  from  liberating  him,  he  stated 
that  it  was  his  wish  that  in  three  years  Louison  be  set  free  and  enjoy 
all  the  rights  of  freedom.  Louison,  in  his  turn,  stated  that  he  thanked 
the  Sieur  Clermont,  and  promised  to  serve  him  faithfully  for  three 
years.  He  also  agreed  to  lose  all  rights  given  him  by  his  master  if  he 
should  be  ungrateful  to  him.  Fortier,  Old  Papers  of  Colonial  Times, 
in  Louisiana  Historical  Society  Publications,  i,  pt.  ii,  1895,  p.  17. 

*  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  1716,  vi,  p.  355. 

8  Ibid.,  1721-1722,  x,  p.  217;  Archives  du  Ministre  des  Colonies,  C.  13, 
vi,  p.  368. 


96  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [348 

Several  causes  contributed  to  the  passing  of  Indian  slav- 
ery in  French  territory.  Wherever  the  American  Indians 
have  been  brought  into  contact  with  the  white  races,  the 
result  has  been  disaster  to  the  red  men.  The  Indian's  na- 
ture is  not  adapted  to  the  white  man's  scheme  of  life.  The 
Indian  absorbed  the  white  man's  diseases  and  vices.  Not 
the  least  of  these  vices  was  the  love  for  strong  drink,  and 
the  weakness  of  the  natives  in  this  respect  was  recognized 
and  encouraged  by  the  traders  of  all  nations.  The  decrease 
in  game  and  other  food  supplies  as  the  Indians  retreated 
from  the  sea,1  famine  followed  by  gluttonous  excesses, 
wasting  of  the  forests  of  the  table  lands,2  all  resulted  in  in- 
ferior living  conditions  and  a  consequent  decrease  in  the 
birth  rate  and  weakening  of  the  tribes.  As  the  weakened 
tribes  withdrew  from  contact  with  the  whites  they  usu- 
ally joined  with  stronger  tribes.  The  removal  of  tribes 
from  their  immediate  neighborhood,  and  the  union  with 
other  and  distant  tribes,  acted  as  a  check  on  the  whites' 
obtaining  Indians  as  slaves.  Such  was  the  case  with  the 
tribes  from  whom  the  French  of  the  Illinois  country  and 
Canada  drew  their  slaves.3 

It  has  already  been  seen  that  the  French  missionaries  of 
early  colonial  days  believed  that  the  enslavement  of  Indians 
would  serve  as  a  means  of  spreading  the  Christian  religion. 
They  found,  however,  that  the  method  of  obtaining  Indian 
slaves  by  trade  only  increased  the  distribution  of  spirituous 
liquors  among  the  tribes;  and  so,  in  1693,  tnev  asked  the 
king  to  prohibit  the  Indian  slave  trade.  An  order  to  this 
effect  was  accordingly  issued,  but  with  little  result.  The 
"  coureurs  de  bois  "  found  means  to  carry  on  the  trade  clan- 

1  Hewat,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the 
Colonies  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  ii,  p.  227. 

2  Wilson,  A  New  History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico,  p.  34. 

3  Dunn,  Indiana,  p.  126. 


349]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  97 

destinely  notwithstanding  the  penalty  attached.1  Again,  in 
1736,  the  king  decided  formally  to  prohibit  the  enslavement 
of  Indians  and  issued  a  decree  to  that  effect;2  but  to  no 
advantage.3 

The  gradual  passing  out  of  existence  of  Indian  slavery, 
furthermore,  was  due,  in  no  small  measure,  to  its  unsatis- 
factory character.  The  leading  colonists  early  made  up 
their  minds  to  this  effect.  Bienville,  in  a  letter  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Marine,  July  28,  1706,  stated  that  the  French 
colonists  earnestly  requested  negroes  to  till  their  lands,  for 
whom  they  were  willing  to  pay  silver,  since  the  colonies 
found  Indian  slaves  unsatisfactory.  He  furthermore  re- 
quested permission  for  the  colonists  to  transport  Indian 
slaves  to  the  West  Indian  Islands  in  exchange  for  negroes. 
The  fact  that  the  colonists  were  willing  to  trade  three  In- 
dians for  two  negroes  is  sufficient  proof  of  the  small  value 
of  Indians  as  slaves.4  Another  letter  to  the  home  govern- 
ment, in  1717,  records  the  same  state  of  affairs  in  the 
colony.5 

1  Carver,  Travels  through  the  Interior  Parts  of  North  America,  etc., 
P.  348. 

1  Salone,  La  Colonisation  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  deuxieme  edition, 
P.  353- 

8  In  1793,  slavery  was  abolished  in  Upper  Canada  by  act  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Parliament.  In  Lower  Canada,  it  had  practically  ceased  by 
1800,  the  few  remaining  slaves  being  freed  by  an  imperial  act  in  1834. 
Jesuit  Relations,  Ixix,  p.  301.  The  last  public  sale  of  a  slave  in  Canada 
took  place  in  Montreal  in  1797.  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  it  was 
the  proceeding  of  the  Canadian  courts,  consistent  with  the  rising  pub- 
lic sentiment  in  England  and  France  against  slavery,  rather  than  the 
actual  state  of  the  law,  which  reached  the  slave  owners'  claims,  and 
finally  broke  them.  Hamilton,  Slavery  in  Canada,  in  Transactions  of 
the  Canadian  Institute,  1890,  i,  p.  102. 

4  Archives  Nationales,   Colonies,   C.    13,   Louisiane,   Correspondance 
Generale,  i,  167^-1706,  p.  514;  Gayarre,  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  100. 

5  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,  Correspond- 
ance Generale,  viii,  1717-1720,  pp.  73-74. 


98  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [350 

Indian  slaves  were  prone  to  run  away,  and  their  use  by 
the  French  as  individual  laborers,  or  their  use  only  in  small 
groups,  if  worked  together,  made  escape  comparatively 
easy.  A  letter  of  Perier  to  the  home  government,  May  12, 
1728,  declared  that  the  traffic  in  Indian  slaves  and  their  use 
in  the  French  colony  was  contrary  to  the  welfare  of  the 
country,  since  such  slaves  served  but  a  short  time  before 
they  escaped  back  to  their  own  tribes  or  to  neighboring 
Indians.  Moreover,  these  deserting  Indians  persuaded  the 
negro  slaves  to  run  away  with  them.1  A  letter  from  the 
President  of  the  Navy  Board  to  la  Jonquiere  and  Bigot, 
May  4,  1749,  represented  that  the  Indian  slaves  brought  up 
in  the  colony  by  the  officers  or  by  the  inhabitants,  generally 
left  them  when  they  attained  a  certain  age  and  again  be- 
came uncivilized;  that  they  were  the  more  dangerous  on 
account  of  the  knowledge  which  they  had  acquired  of  the 
country,  being  better  able  than  others  to  make  incursions 
therein ;  and  that  through  the  habit  of  keeping  these  slaves 
the  whites  were  dissuaded  from  becoming  domestic  ser- 
vants.2 

Among  the  slaves  the  boys  were  not  so  much  to  be  de- 
pended upon  as  the  girls,  since  they  were  stubborn,  resented 
more  strongly  their  being  held  in  slavery,  and  were  more  in- 
clined to  run  away.  Long's  Journal,  1768-1782,  speaking 
of  the  western  Indians,  records :  "  They  are  also  full  of 
pride  and  resentment,  and  will  not  hesitate  to  kill  their  mas- 
ters in  order  to  gratify  their  revenge  for  a  supposed  injury. 
The  girls  are  more  docile,  and  assimilate  much  sooner 
into  the  manners  of  civilization."3  It  is  probable  that 

1  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,   Correspond- 
ance  Generate,  xvii,  pp.  303-307. 

2  Report  Concerning  Canadian  Archives,  1905,  i,  p.  117. 

•John  Long's  Journal,  1768-1782,  in  Thwaites,  Early  Western  Travels, 
ii,  p.  116. 


2$ i]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  99 

slaves  coming  from  the  Pawnee  tribe,  and  held  so  largely 
by  the  French  of  Detroit  and  Canada,  were  more  satisfac- 
tory than  those  coming  from  other  tribes.1  It  has  been  said 
that  "  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  another  of  the  wild  tribes 
of  the  continent  capable  of  subjection  to  domestic  slavery."  2 
But  the  Pawnee,  like  other  slaves,  ran  away.3 

Though  Indian  slaves  were  not  as  profitable  laborers  as 
might  be  desired,  their  loss  was  to  be  avoided,  if  possible. 
The  matter  was  so  serious  as  to  interest  the  action  of  the 
authorities,  and  in  1709,  Jacques  Raudot,  intendant  of 
Canada,  issued  an  ordinance  containing  an  injunction 
which  forbade  any  slave  running  away,  and  containing  pro- 
visions for  imposing  a  fine  of  fifty  livres  on  those  who  aided 
such  runaways.4 

Indian  slaves  were  too  few  in  number  and  too  inferior  in 
capacity  for  labor  to  supply  the  needs  of  the  colonists.  So 
an  attempt  was  made  by  the  home  government  to  supply 
the  needed  laborers  by  establishing  the  system  of  inden- 
tured servants  in  the  colonies.  On  November  16,  1716,  an 
ordinance  directed  that  vessels  leaving  France  for  any  of 
the  king's  American  colonies  were  to  carry  thither,  if  of 
fifty  tons,  three  servants;  of  sixty  to  one  hundred  tons, 
four  servants;  of  one  hundred  tons  and  upward,  six  ser- 
vants. The  period  of  service  of  such  servants  was  fixed  at 
three  years.  They  were  required  to  be  of  sound  body,  be- 
tween the  ages  of  eighteen  and  forty,  and  in  height  not 
under  four  feet.  These  servants  were  to  be  examined  be- 

1  Care  should  be  taken  to  distinguish  between  the  term  "  Pawnee  "  as 
applied  to  an  Indian  tribe,  and  as  used  by  the  French  to  mean  any 
Indian  slave,  regardless  of  the  tribe  to  which  he  originally  belonged. 

2  Parkman,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  p.  338. 
» Ibid.,  p.  388. 

4  Hamilton,  S la-very  in  Canada,  in  Transactions  of  the  Canadian  In- 
stitute, 1890,  i,  p.  102. 


I0o  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [352 

fore  the  officers  of  the  admiralty  to  see  if  they  fulfilled  the 
requirements  of  the  law,  and  were  to  receive  another  exam- 
ination by  the  commissary  on  landing  in  America.  Such 
of  the  redemptioners  as  the  captain  might  not  sell  were  to 
be  given  to  some  of  the  planters  who  had  none,  and  who 
were  to  pay  their  passage.  The  ordinance  was  repeated 
May  20,  1721,  with  the  additional  provision  that  merchants 
of  the  ports  having  permission  to  trade  with  the  colonies 
were  to  pay  sixty  livres  for  each  redemptioner  whom  they 
had  to  furnish,  if  individuals  for  that  purpose  were  not 
furnished  them  by  the  government.1 

The  purpose  of  France,  in  making  such  careful  provision 
for  sending  indentured  servants  to  the  New  World,  was  a 
real  effort  to  increase  the  population  and,  therefore,  the 
trade  of  America.2  Moreover,  the  home  government  feared 
the  danger  that  might  come  to  the  colony  by  the  increase 
of  the  black  over  the  white  population,  and  hoped  this  in- 
dentured servant  system  would  be  a  means  to  that  end. 
But  the  scheme  had  little  result.  The  colonists  preferred 
black  slaves  to  white  servants.  Their  term  of  service  was 
for  life  instead  of  a  short  period.  They  were  easier  to 
control,  cheaper  to  keep,  and  were  better  workers.  Yet,  it 
has  been  estimated  that  from  1711  to  1728,  two  thousand 
five  hundred  redemptioners  were  brought  to  the  French 
colonies.3  Such  a  number  of  white  servants  must,  in  a 
measure,  have  checked  the  acquisition  of  Indian  slaves. 

But  the  need  for  laborers  was  to  be  supplied  in  the 
French  colonies  by  the  black,  instead  of  the  white  race. 
Although  the  home  government  grew  to  fear  the  result  of 

1  Fortier,  A  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  85 ;  Burke,  An  Account  of  the 
European  Settlements  in  America,  i,  p.  45. 

1  France  also  had  in  mind  the  getting  rid  of  an  undesirable  class. 
3  Martin,  The  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  266. 


353]  ENSLAVEMENT  BY  THE  FRENCH  IOi 

the  rapid  increase  of  the  negro  element,  yet,  at  first,  it 
favored  the  importation  of  blacks  to  the  American  colonies. 
In  1688,  Louis  XIV  issued  an  edict  authorizing  the  im- 
portation of  negroes  from  Africa  into  America.1  Article 
XIV  of  the  letters  patent  granted  by  the  king  to  Crozat, 
September  30,  1712,  gave  the  latter  permission,  if  he  found 
it  advisable  to  have  the  blacks  in  Louisiana,  to  send  a  ship 
every  year  to  the  coast  of  Guinea  to  obtain  them,  and  to 
sell  them  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony.2  So,  from  the 
first,  negro  slaves  were  present  in  the  French  colonies, 
though  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
they  were  outnumbered  by  the  Indian  slaves.3 

In  1713,  there  were  but  twenty  negro  slaves  in  Louis- 
iana,4 but  with  the  granting  of  the  charter  of  the  Western 
Company  in  1717,  their  increased  importation  began.  A 
provision  of  the  charter  required  that  during  the  lifetime  of 
the  charter  (twenty-five  years,)  not  less  than  three  thous- 
and negroes  be  carried  to  the  colony.  The  first  large  im- 
portation was  made  by  the  Company  in  June,  1719,  when 
five  hundred  negroes  were  brought  from  the  coast  of 
Guinea.5  For  several  years,  the  importation  of  negroes  into 
Louisiana  was  one  of  the  most  profitable  monopolies  of  the 
Western  Company.6  One  authority  states  that,  during  the 
period  from  1717  to  1723,  one  thousand,  four  hundred  and 
forty-one  negroes  were  brought  in.7  Another  states  that 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  42.     Hamilton,  Slavery  in  Canada,  in  Trans- 
actions of  the  Canadian  Institute,  1890,  i,  p.  102. 
a  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  42. 

8  Rowland,  Encyclopedia  of  Mississippi  History,  ii,  p.  673. 
*  Wallace,  History  of  Louisiana  and  Illinois,  p.  239. 
6  Rowland,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  673. 
6  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  21. 
1  Stoddard,  History  of  Louisiana,  p.  36. 


102  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [354 

from  1717  to  1728  eighteen  were  introduced.1  The 
"Code  Noir  "  of  1724  shows  that  the  negro  slaves  had 
become  the  majority  by  that  time,  for  no  direct  mention 
is  made  in  it  to  Indian  slaves.2  In  1727,  it  was  reported 
that  on  each  of  the  "  concessions,"  or  leading  grants,  there 
were,  at  least,  sixty  negroes  cultivating  corn,  rice,  indigo 
and  tobacco.3 

To  open  up  and  work  the  mineral  resources  of  Louisiana, 
Philip  Francois  Renault  was  sent  out  by  the  Company  of 
the  West  in  1719.  On  his  way,  he  bought  at  San  Domingo, 
in  the  name  of  his  Company,  five  hundred  negroes  for 
working  the  mines.  These  negroes  were  taken  into  the 
Illinois  country.4  The  number  of  negroes  in  the  Illinois 
country  never  equaled  that  of  the  country  farther  south, 
yet  in  1750,  a  Jesuit  missionary  found  one  thousand,  one 
hundred  whites,  three  hundred  blacks,  and  sixty  Indian 
slaves  in  five  villages  of  the  Illinois  country,5  and  by  1763, 
the  black  population  numbered  over  nine  hundred.6 

From  the  foregoing  account  it  will  be  seen  that  the  stead- 
ily increasing  number  of  negro  slaves,  resulting  from  a  pro- 
motion of  the  commercial  interests  of  the  home  government 
and  from  the  more  satisfactory  labor  performed  by  the 
blacks,  must  have  been  the  leading  cause  that  produced  the 
steady  decrease  in  the  number  of  Indian  slaves  among  the 
French. 

1  Martin,  History  of  Louisiana,  i,  p.  266.  For  an  instance  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  negroes  brought  in  one  vessel  to  Louisiana  in 
1/21,  see  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  583. 

*  See  Fortier,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  87-94. 

3  Jesuit  Relations,  Ixvii,  p.  281. 

4  Albach,  Annals  of  the  West,  p.  88;  Illinois  Historical  Society  Pub- 
lications, xi,  1906,  p.  49. 

8  Breese,  Early  History  of  Illinois,  p.  194. 

6  Illinois  Historical  Society  Publications,  xi,  1906,  p.  49. 


PART  II 

THE  INSTITUTION  AS  PRACTICED  BY  THE 

ENGLISH 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES 

To  arrive  at  any  knowledge  of  the  exact  number  of 
Indian  slaves  in  any  of  the  English  colonies  is  impossible. 
Census  reports  and  other  vital  statistics  are  infrequent  or 
lacking,  especially  in  the  early  colonial  period;  and  often  in 
such  statistics  as  are  extant  Indian  slaves  either  receive 
no  mention,  or  are  classed  with  negro  slaves  without  dis- 
tinction. From  existing  records,  however,  one  is  able  to 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  comparative  numbers  in  the  dif- 
ferent groups  of  colonies,  and  to  some  extent  in  the  in- 
dividual colonies,  during  the  colonial  period.  New  Eng- 
land and  the  southern  colonies  were  the  sections  that  em- 
ployed Indian  slave  labor  most  extensively,  the  south  tak- 
ing precedence,  for  climatic  conditions  there  were  more 
favorable,  and  economic  conditions  made  necessary  a  larger 
quantity  of  servile  labor  than  was  required  in  the  north.1 
Yet  New  England  made  use  of  the  natives  as  slaves  as  long 
as  they  lasted,2  and  drew  further  supplies  from  Maine,3 
the  Carolinas,4  and  other  districts.5 

Among  the  English  colonies,  the  Carolinas  stood  first 

1  Doyle,  English  Colonies  in  America,  The  Puritan  Colonies,  ii,  p.  506. 

2  I.  e.,  until  after  the  Pequot  and  King  Philip  Wars. 

3  Freeman,  The  History  of  Cape  Cod,  p.  72. 
*  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  1715,  p.  516. 

6  Coffin,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Newbury,  etc.,  p.  337 ;  Essex 
Institute  Historical  Collections,  vii,  p.  73 ;  Connecticut  Colonial  Records, 
I7H,  P.  233. 

357]  105 


I06  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [358 

in  the  use  of  Indians  as  slaves.  Such  use  began  with  the 
founding  of  the  colony.  The  need  for  laborers  was  great; 
the  source  of  supply  was  near  at  hand  and  the  colonists 
availed  themselves  of  their  opportunity.  Probably  captives 
of  the  Stono  War  became  the  Indian  slaves  mentioned  in 
the  inventory  of  Captain  Valentine  Byrd,  "  one  of  the  gran- 
dees of  the  time."  In  a  report  on  conditions  in  the 
colony,  made  to  the  proprietors,  September  17,  1708,  by 
Governor  Nathaniel  Johnson  and  his  council,  the  number 
of  Indian  men  slaves  was  given  as  500,  Indian  women 
slaves,  as  600,  Indian  children  slaves,  as  300,  a  total  of 
1400  Indian  slaves.  The  number  of  negroes  at  the  same 
time  was  stated  as  4100,  of  indentured  servants,  120,  and 
of  free  whites,  3960.  The  governor  gave  the  cause  of 
the  rapid  increase  in  the  number  of  the  Indian  slaves  dur- 
ing the  five  preceding  years,  as  "  our  late  conquest  over  the 
French  and  Spanish,  and  the  success  of  our  forces  against 
the  Appalaskys  and  in  other  Indian  engagements/' 

Only  a  small  portion  of  the  whole  number  of  Indians 
enslaved  were  kept  in  the  colony.3  Yet,  in  1708,  it  was 
estimated  that  the  native  population  furnished  one- fourth 
of  the  whole  number  of  slaves  in  South  Carolina,4  The 
public  records  of  that  colony  contain  a  list  of  ninety- 
eight  Indian  slaves  with  their  owners'  names,  taken  by 
the  Spaniards  and  their  allies  in  1715,  during  the  Indian 

1  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  etc.,  second  edition,  ii,  p.  577. 

2  Bancroft  Papers  Relating  to  Carolina,  in  New  York  City  Public 
Library,  MSS.  vol.  i,  1662-1769;  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of 
South  Carolina  to  the  Close  of  the  Proprietary  Government,  etc.,  p. 
232;  South  Carolina  Historical  Society  Collections,  ii,  p.  217;  Thomas, 
The  Indians  of  North  America,  etc.,  p.  95;  Schaper,  Sectionalism  in 
South  Carolina,  p.  263. 

1  Logan,  A  History  of  the  Upper  Country  of  South  Carolina,  i,  p.  189. 
4  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South  Carolina  to  the  Close  of 
Proprietary  Government,  etc.,  p.  231. 


359]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES  107 

war,  and  carried  to  St.  Augustine.  The  number  of  these 
slaves  belonging  to  individual  persons  varied  from  one  to 
ten.1  A  report  of  1723  mentions  the  number  of  slaves  in 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  as  ranging  from  16,000  to 
20,000,  "  chiefly  negroes  and  a  few  Indians."  2  Another 
report  of  the  following  year  estimates  the  number  of  slaves 
as  32,000,  "  mostly  negroes  ",s  In  1728,  the  population 
of  St.  Thomas'  parish,  South  Carolina,  consisted  of  565 
whites,  950  negro  slaves,  and  60  Indian  slaves.4  From 

1  Public  Records  of  South  Carolina,  1711-1716,  vi,  p.  276;  British 
Public  Record  Office,  Am.  N.  I.,  vol.  620. 

1  Hewat,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  of  the  Colonies  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  i,  p.  309. 

8  Glenn,  A  Description  of  South  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  81 ;  Charleston 
Year  Book,  1883,  p.  407.  (A  quotation  from  a  pamphlet  entitled, 
"  The  Importance  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America  to  this  King- 
dom," London,  1731). 

4  Dalcho,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  South  Carolina,  p.  287;  Humphreys,  An  Historical  Account  of  the 
Incorporated  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts,  etc.,  edition  of  1730,  pp.  103-105. 

As  the  result  of  the  intermingling  of  negroes  and  Indians,  which 
came  about  when  the  coast  tribes  dwindled  and  the  small  number 
of  remaining  members  moved  inland,  associated  and  intermarried 
with  the  negroes  until  they  finally  lost  their  identity  and  were  classed 
with  that  race,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  blood  of  the  southern 
negroes  is  unquestionably  Indian.  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1897-1898,  p.  233.  It  was  these 
mixed  bloods,  as  well  as  the  pure  blood  Indians,  to  which  the  statutes 
referred  by  the  terms  "  Indian  slaves "  and  "  mustee,"  or  "  mestee," 
slaves.  Occasional  mention  is  made  in  the  colonial  newspapers  of 
slaves  of  the  mixed  red  and  black  races.  American  Weekly  Mercury, 
October  24,  1734.  The  opinion  has  even  been  advanced  that,  in 
certain  of  the  colonies,  there  never  were  any  pure  blood  Ind:an 
slaves.  Mr.  W.  B.  Melius  of  Albany,  New  York,  asserts ;  "  I  do  not 
believe  the  pure  Indian  was  sold  as  a  slave  (in  New  York),  I  believe 
the  Indian  who  was  the  slave  was  not  without  mixture."  New  York 
State  Library  Bulletin,  History.  No.  4,  May,  1000.  One  instance  of 
the  mixture  of  the  Indians  and  negroes  in  New  York  is  found  in  a 
complaint  made  in  1717,  that  negro  slaves  ran  away,  and  were  secreted 
by  the  Minisink  with  whose  women  they  intermarried.  Ibid.,  No.  4, 
May,  1000. 


108  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [360 

these  statistics,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  number  of  Indian 
slaves  was  much  smaller  than  the  number  of  negroes,  and 
that  it  was  growing  smaller  toward  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  while  that  of  negroes  was  constantly  in- 
creasing. 

The  early  history  of  Indian  slavery  in  Georgia  is  s ) 
bound  up  with  that  of  Carolina,  the  Indian  wars,  and  the 
difficulties  with  the  Spaniards  of  Florida,  as  to  require  but 
little  especial  attention.  After  the  settlement  of  Georgia 
as  a  separate  colony,  occasional  mention  is  made  of  Indian 
slaves.1  In  1759,  as  the  basis  for  a  tax  bill,  the  number  of 
slaves  was  placed  at  2500,  but  a  committee  of  the  legislature 
declared  the  number  to  have  been  underestimated.  How 
many  of  this  number  were  Indians  is  not  known.  The 
colony  was  settled  at  a  time  when  Indian  slavery  was  pass- 
ing out  of  existence.  So  it  is  safe  to  state  that  the  num- 
ber of  such  slaves  was  small. 

The  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  Virginia,  also,  was  smalt, 
owing  largely  to  the  number  of  indentured  servants,  and  to 
the  early  introduction  and  fitness  of  the  negroes  for  the 
labor  of  the  colony.  In  1671,  Berkeley  reported  the  whole 
population  of  the  colony  as  40,000,  the  number  of  inden- 
tured servants  as  6000,  and  that  of  slaves  as  2000. 2  But  no 
division  of  slaves  according  to  color  was  made.  In  certain 
sections  but  few  slaves  were  used.  The  Scotch-Irish  and 
the  Germans  preferred  their  own  labor  to  that  of  slaves. 
Some  Indians  were  taken  in  war,  but  they  were  inconsider- 
able when  compared  with  the  number  captured  in  the 
Carolinas.  Occasional  mention  of  Indian  slaves  is  found 
well  into  the  eighteenth  century. 

Indian  slavery  in  Massachusetts  began  early.     Folio w- 

1  Colonial  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  vi,  p.  259,  mentions  an 
Indian  slave  in  1749. 

a  Howe,  Historical  Collections  of  Virginia,  etc.,  p.  134. 


361]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES  109 

ing  the  Pequot  War,  1637,  forty-eight  captives  were  re- 
tained as  slaves  in  the  colony.1  After  King  Philip's  War. 
1675,  also,  certain  of  the  captives  were  made  slaves,2  but 
no  record  exists  of  the  exact  number.  The  various  re- 
cords and  histories  of  the  Massachusetts  towns  show  a 
general  distribution  of  Indian  slaves  throughout  the  colony 
during  the  colonial  period,  such  as  existed  following  the 
two  Indian  wars  above  noted.  Mere  mention  may  be  made 
of  some  of  these :  Plymouth,3  Boston,4  Roxbury,5  Ipswich,6 
Quincy,7  Charleston,8  Maiden,9  Haverhill,10  Milton.11  None 
of  the  official  reports  on  the  condition  of  New  England 
makes  mention  of  Indian  slaves.12  But  statistics  show  the 
number  of  slaves  in  Massachusetts  in  1720  to  have  been 
2000,  including  a  few  Indians.13  In  1790,  according  to  the 

1  Winthrop,  Journal  History  of  New  England,  i,  p.  225,  in  Original 
Narratives  of  Early  American  History. 

J  See  Chapter  V. 

"  It  seems  probable  that  there  were  no  Indian  slaves  in  Plymouth 
before  the  division  of  land  in  1623."  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
Collections,  series  4,  iii,  p.  114. 

4  Boston  News  Letter  and  other  newspapers. 

5  Ellis,  The  History  of  Roxbury  Town,  p.  136. 

6  Felt,  The  History  of  Ipswich,  pp.  306,  320;  Boston  Weekly  Mercury, 
October  2,  1735. 

7  Wilson,  Where  American  Independence  Began,  p.  154. 

8  Corey,  The  History  of  Maiden,  p.  416. 
9  Ibid. 

10  Chase,  The  History  of  Haverhill,  pp.  239,  248. 

11  Earle,  Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England,  p.  84. 

12  Doyle,  English  Colonies  in  America,  The  Puritan  Colonies,  ii,  p.  68. 
In  1708,  Governor  Dudley  made  a  report  on  slaves  and  the  slave 
trade  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  which  he  stated  that  there  were  400 
negro  slaves  in  Massachusetts.  No  mention  was  made  of  Indians. 
Historical  Magazine,  x,  p.  52- 

15  American  Antiquarian  Society  Proceedings,   1885-1887,  new  series, 
iv,  p.  216. 


110  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [362 

United  States  census  report,  the  number  of  slaves  in  the 
state  was  6,00 1,  which  number  included  about  200  half 
breed  Indians.1  Since  Massachusetts  took  the  lead  in  the 
two  Indian  wars  of  New  England,  it  seems  likely  that  the 
number  of  Indian  slaves  in  that  colony  exceeded  that  in 
either  Connecticut  or  Rhode  Island.2 

The  Rhode  Island  laws  from  1636  to  1704  make 
no  mention  of  Indian  slaves.  Yet  they  were  held  in 
the  colony  before  1704.  The  records  of  Block  Island 
show  them  there  in  sufficient  numbers,  in  1675,  to  warrant 
the  town  council  regulating  their  action.  Captives  taken 
in  King  Philip's  War  were  retained  in  the  colony  tempor- 
arily as  slaves.  The  Boston  newspapers  occasionally  men- 
tion runaway  Indian  slaves  of  Block  Island.3  Both  negro 
and  Indian  slavery  reached  a  development  in  colonial  Nar- 
ragansett  unusual  in  the  northern  colonies.4  In  1730, 
South  Kingston  had  a  population  of  935  whites,  333 
negroes  and  223  Indian  slaves.  Eighteen  years  later,  the 
proportion  of  races  was  nearly  the  same:  1405  whites,  380 
negroes,  and  193  Indians.5  As  late  as  1778,  the  laws  of 
Rhode  Island  mentioned  Indian  slaves.0 

Indian  slavery  in  Connecticut  began  almost  with  the 
founding  of  the  colony,  and  came  about  as  a  result  of  the 
Pequot  War  (1636).  The  captives  taken  in  the  war  were 

1  American  Statistical  Association  Collections,  i,  pp.  208-214; 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  I,  iv,  p.  199. 

3  Livermore,  A  History  of  Block  Island,  etc.,  p.  60. 

8  New  England  Courant,  June  17,  1723 — A  Spanish  Indian  runaway 
from  Newport;  Boston  Gazette,  October  28,  1728 — An  Indian  runa- 
way slave  from  Warwick,  Rhode  Island. 

4  Channing,  The  Narragansett  Planters,  p.  10,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies,  iv. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

•  Colonial  Records  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
viii,  p.  359- 


363]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES  1 1 1 

assigned  directly  to  the  colony  and  were  retained  and  dis- 
tributed among  the, inhabitants.1  The  colonists  appear  to 
have  held  a  greater  number  of  such  slaves  then  than  at  any 
later  period.  Certain  Indians,  also,  were  kept  in  the  colony 
as  slaves  following  King  Philip's  War,  but  the  number  is 
unknown.2  Local  histories  show  them  in  different  towns 
well  into  the  eighteenth  century.3  An  answer  sent  to  a 
query  from  the  Board  of  Trade  in  1680  states  that  there 
were  then  thirty  slaves  in  Connecticut,  but  no  mention  is 
made  of  Indian  slaves  though  they  existed  in  the  colony.4 

The  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  New  Hampshire  was 
undoubtedly  very  small.  During  the  Pequot  War  and 
King  Philip's  War,  New  Hampshire  remained  at  peace  with 
the  Indians,  and  the  statement  has  been  made  that  no  New 
Hampshire  merchant  or  captain,  during  the  Indian  wars, 
kidnapped  natives  or  consciously  broke  faith  with  them.5 
The  close  connection  with  Massachusetts,  however,  made 
inevitable  the  existence  of  Indian  slaves  in  the  former  col- 
ony,6 and  the  Boston  newspapers  occasionally  mention  such 
slaves  as  late  as  approximately  i75o.7 

1  Bradford,    History    of   Plymouth   Plantation,    p.    342,    in    Original 
Narratives  of  Early  American  History. 

2  See  pp.   130-131,  150- 

3  Caulkins,  History  of  New  London,  pp.  330,  335,  mentions  Indian 
slaves  in  1711  and  1735;  An  Indian  woman  slave  lived  in  Westbury 
until  her  death  in  1774.     Steiner,  History  of  Slavery  in  Connecticut, 
p.  21,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xi. 

4  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  p.  12,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xi. 

6  Sanborn,  New  Hampshire,  an  Epitome  of  Popular  Government, 
P.  137- 

6  Sanborn,  op.  cit.,  p.  151,  states  that  in  1720,  hardly  an  Indian  re- 
mained in  New  Hampshire,  except,  perhaps,  an  enslaved  captive. 

1  The  Boston  Postboy,  May  2,  1743,  advertises  a  runaway  Indian 
slave  from  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire.  The  same  paper,  July  25, 
1743,  advertises  another  runaway  Indian  slave  from  New  Castle, 
in  the  same  colony. 


II2  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [364 

In  the  middle  group  of  colonies,  the  number  of  Indian 
slaves  was  never  large,  and,  in  comparison  with  that  in 
either  the  southern  or  New  England  groups,  it  was  con- 
spicuously small.  There  appear  to  have  been  more  of  such 
slaves  in  New  York  than  in  any  other  colony  of  the  group, 
a  condition  due  to  its  greater  trade  with  the  colonies  which 
exported  them.  The  English  colony,  furthermore,  took 
over  no  Indian  slaves  from  its  Dutch  predecessor.1 

1  "  In  theory,  at  least,  the  Hollander  considered  the  Indian  a  man 
like  himself,  with  analogous  rights  to  life,  liberty  and  possessions." 
Consequently,  "  Indians  were  not  enslaved  in  New  Netherland."  Van 
Rensselaer,  History  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  Seventeenth 
Century,  i,  p.  63.  These  statements  are  rather  difficult  to  prove. 
Holding  Indians  as  slaves  who  had  been  enslaved  elsewhere  and  then 
brought  into  the  colony,  and  making  slaves  in  the  colony  and  then 
sending  them  out  of  it,  were  practices  that  unquestionably  existed, 
even  if  on  a  small  scale.  The  declaration  of  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil of  New  York  in  1680  that  "  all  Indians  here  have  always  been, 
and  are,  free,  and  not  slave,  except  such  as  have  been  formerly 
brought  from  the  Bay  and  Foreign  Ports,"  (Brodhead,  History  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  331),  shows  the  presence 
of  some  Indian  slaves  in  the  Dutch  colony. 

The  records  of  New  Netherland  contain  accounts  of  manumission 
in  that  colony  of  slaves  called  Spaniards  and  bearing  Spanish 
names.  Whether  these  individuals  were  Spanish  Indians,  or  negroes 
from  the  Spanish  Islands,  is  not  specified  in  the  records.  One  such 
person  received  his  freedom  in  1645,  by  payment  of  300  carolus  guild- 
ers. O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts  in  the  Office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Albany,  New  York,  pt.  i,  p.  45.  Another 
received  his  freedom  in  1646,  in  return  for  his  long  and  faithful  ser- 
vices. O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  105.  Two  others,  slaves  in  the 
Company's  service,  were  freed  in  1664.  O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i, 
p.  264.  iStill  others,  belonging  presumably  to  individual  owners,  re- 
ceived freedom  in  this  same  year.  O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  269. 

Two  incidents  of  enslavement  of  Indians  in  New  Netherland  are 
noteworthy,  even  if  the  individuals  concerned  were  subsequently  sent 
out  of  the  colony.  The  first  instance  occurred  in  1644,  in  connection 
with  the  Indian  troubles  of  that  time.  At  the  close  of  the  diffi- 
culties, some  of  the  Indian  prisoners  were  sent  by  Governor  Kieft 
to  the  Bermudas  "  as  a  present  to  the  English  governor."  Still  others 
were  given  to  the  "  oldest  and  most  experienced  soldiers,"  who,  at 


365  ]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLA  VES  i  x  3 

The  inhabitants  of  New  York,  under  Dutch  or  English 
rule,  never  waged  any  war  on  the  order  of  those  in  New 
England  against  the  Indian  tribes.  Nor  did  the  distribution 
of  New  England  captives  affect  this  colony  to  any  great 
extent.  A  few  Indian  slaves  were  introduced  from  for- 
eign parts,  but  the  selling  and  holding  of  Indians  as  slaves 
was  never  a  general  custom.1  The  existence  of  Indian 
slaves,  however,  was  recognized  by  a  decree  of  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  in  i68o.2  An  Indian  slave  was  sold 

that  time,  were  allowed  to  go  to  Holland.  Brodhead,  History  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  revised  edition,  i,  p.  396;  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  i,  p.  215;  Van  Rensselaer,  op.  tit.,  i,  p.  235.  The  second 
instance  was  connected  with  the  Esopus  Indians.  On  May  25,  1660, 
a  resolution  was  taken  in  the  council  to  transport  to  Curagao  all  but 
two  or  three  of  the  lately  acquired  Esopus  Indians,  "to  be  employed 
there,  or  at  Buenaire,  with  the  negroes  in  the  Company's  service." 
Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  revised  edition,  i,  p.  676;  O'Callaghan,  Calendar 
of  Historical  Manuscripts  in  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Albany,  pt.  i,  p.  295.  On  June  29th,  Stuyvesant  issued  an  order  and 
arranged  for  their  passage.  O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.t  pt.  i,  p.  214. 
O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  etc.,  ii,  p.  420,  gives  the 
number  transported  as  eleven.  Schoonmaker,  The  History  of  Kings- 
ton, p.  16,  states  it  as  twenty.  Those  retained  in  the  colony  on  this 
occasion  were  not  enslaved,  but  were  to  be  punished  "as  might  be 
thought  proper  or  as  necessity  might  demand."  Schoonmaker, 
op.  cit.,  p.  16.  The  relations  with  the  Iroquois  had  prevented  any 
serious  Indian  wars  in  the  colony,  and  because  of  this  relation  Stuy- 
vesant's  act  was  considered  highly  impolitic.  His  course,  which  was 
perhaps  patterned  after  the  action  of  the  English  following  the 
Pequot  War,  he  sought  to  justify  in  his  declaration  that  "their  en- 
largement would  have  a  tendency  to  create  disaffection  toward  our 
nation.  Our  barbarian  neighbors  would  glory,  as  if  they  had  inspired 
us  with  terror."  Schoonmaker,  op.  cit.,  p.  16.  In  1661  these  Indians 
were  recalled  from  slavery.  O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical 
Manuscripts,  etc.,  pt.  i,  p.  295. 

1  Van  Rensselaer,  History  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century,  i,  p.  193. 

8  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  revised  edition,  i,  p. 
193- 


INDIAN  SLA  VERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES         [  366 

July  30,  1687,  in  Hempstead,  Long  Island.1  The  narra- 
tive of  grievances  against  Jacob  Leisler  includes  the  fol- 
lowing: "The  same  night,  December  23,  1689,  an  Indian 
slave,  belonging  to  Philip  French,  was  dragged  to  the  Fort 
(New  York),  and  there  imprisoned." 2  In  July,  1703,  the 
governor  received  a  petition  regarding  an  Indian  slave.3 
The  will  of  William  Smith,  of  the  manor  of  St.  George,  Suf- 
folk County,  April  23, 1704,  divided  a  number  of  negro  and 
Indian  slaves  among  his  children.4  In  1715,  certain  Indians 
complained  that  the  whites  were  enslaving  native  children 
entrusted  to  them  for  instruction.5  Arent  Schuyler  of  New 
York,  1724,  gave  to  each  of  his  two  daughters,  in  his  will, 
an  Indian  slave  woman.6  The  same  year  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Jenny  reported  :  "  There  are  a  few  negro  and  Indian 
slaves  in  my  parish." 7  On  July  3, 1 726,  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Vesey  of  New  York,  in  a  letter  to  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  stated  that  in 
the  colony  there  were  "about  one  thousand  and  four  hun- 
dred Indian  and  negro  slaves," 8  but  told  nothing  about  the 
proportion  of  each.  Colonel  Johnson's  letter  to  Governor 
Clinton,  January  22,  1750,9  and  William  Johnson's  letter 

1  Records  of  the  Towns  of  North  and  South  Hempstead,  Long  Island, 
ii,  p.  60. 

*  Northrup,  Slavery  in  New  York,  in  New  York  State  Library  Bul- 
letin, History,  No.  4,  May,  1900,  p.  305. 

'O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts  in  the  Office  o 
the  Secretary  of  State,  Albany,  New  York,  pt.  ii,  p.  314. 

*  New  York  Historical  Society  Collections,  1892,  i,  p.  413. 
5  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  p.  433. 

•  Schuyler,  Colonial  New  York,  ii,  p.  193.     Note  that  April  27,  1699, 
Bellomont  reported  to  the  Lords  of  Trade:  "They  have  no  other  ser- 
vants in  this  country  but  negroes." 

7  Scharf,  History  of  Westchester  County,  etc.,  ii,  p.  667. 

8  Ecclesiastical  Records  of  the  State  of  New  York,  iv,  p.  2357;  Dix, 
History  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
i,  p.  203. 

•  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vi,  p.  546. 


367]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES  115 

to  G.  W.  Banyar,  June  28,  1771,*  the  former  relating  to  In- 
dian children  held  as  slaves,  and  the  latter  mentioning  a 
Pawnee  Indian  slave  in  New  York,  show  the  existence  of 
such  slaves  until  a  late  date.  Occasional  mention  is  found 
in  the  newspapers  of  the  time  of  runaway  Indian  slaves.2 
From  the  evidence  the  conclusion  is  that  although  the  exist- 
ence of  Indian  slavery  was  continuous  in  New  York 
throughout  the  colonial  period,  the  number  of  Indian 
slaves,  in  comparison  with  that  of  individual  colonies  in 
New  England  and  the  south,  was  small. 

William  Penn,  speaking  of  his  purpose  in  founding  a 
colony  in  America  said :  "  I  went  thither  to  lay  the  foun- 
dation of  a  free  colony  for  all  mankind."  Yet  in  Penn- 
sylvania existed  the  indentured  servant,  the  negro  slave 
and  the  Indian  slave.  Considering  the  attitude  and  the 
relations  of  Penn  and  his  followers  toward  the  red  men 
one  would  hardly  expect  to  find  the  Indians  enslaved.  In 
the  absence  of  wars  with  the  natives,3  no  Indian  captives 
were  reduced  to  servitude.  The  Indian  slaves  used  were 
brought  from  other  colonies.  The  newspapers  contain  ac- 
counts of  their  being  bought  and  sold,  and  of  their  running 

1  O'Callaghan,  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  ii,  p.  984; 
Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collections,  xxx,  p.  596. 

3  New  York  Gazette,  July  23,  1733  (a  runaway  Indian  slave  from 
Flushing)  ;  March  3,  1734  (a  runaway  Indian  slave  from  Westchester)  ; 
February  13,  1739  (a  runaway  slave  from  New  York  City).  New  York 
Weekly  Mercury,  October  27,  November  3,  and  November  10,  1740  (a 
runaway  Indian  slave  from  New  York)  ;  August  16,  1756  (a  runaway 
Indian  slave  from  Long  Island)  ;  May  30  and  June  13,  1757  (a  run- 
away Indian  slave  from  "the  mines  near  Second  River");  June  12, 
June  19,  June  26,  July  3,  1758  (a  runaway  Indian  slave  from  New- 
castle, Westchester  County). 

'  The  Delaware  Indians  had  been  conquered  by  the  Iroquois,  and 
so  humbled  that  they  were  glad  to  accept  the  friendship  of  the 
Quakers  and  live  in  peace.  Parkman,  The  Conspiracy  of  Pontiac, 
etc.,  sixth  edition,  i,  p.  82. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [368 

away,  as  in  the  other  colonies.1  The  leading  men  of  the 
colony  owned  them.  Penn's  own  deputy,  Governor  Wil- 
liam Markham,  owned  one,  born  in  1700,  who,  by  the 
terms  of  Markham's  will,  was  to  be  freed  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five.2  In  a  bill  of  sale  of  the  personal  effects  of 
Sir  William  Keith,  dated  May  26,  1726,  an  Indian  woman 
and  her  son  were  mentioned  among  the  seventeen  slaves 
listed.3 

In  1780,  a  farmer  of  East  Nottingham,  Chester  County, 
registered,  at  the  county  seat,  the  names  of  an  Indian  girl, 
aged  twenty-four  years,  a  slave  for  life,  and  of  an  Indian 
man  in  slavery  until  he  arrived  at  the  age  of  thirty-one 
years.4  The  action  of  the  Friends'  Yearly  Meeting  in 
1719,  also,  shows  that  Indian  slaves,  as  well  as  negro 
slaves,  were  owned  by  the  members  of  that  religious 
society.5 

It  has  been  said  that  slavery  in  New  Jersey  was  more 
prevalent  among  the  Dutch  settlements  and  the  plantations 
of  South  Jersey  than  in  the  Calvinistic  towns  of  East 
Jersey.6  Since  the  number  of  negro  slaves  throughout  the 
Dutch  possessions  of  America  was  considerable,  it  may  be 

1  The  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  April  20,  1737,  October  5,  1738,  March 
16,  1731.  The  American  Daily  Mercury,  March  24,  1720;  May  24, 
1726;  August  28,  1729;  July  30,  1730;  August  16,  1733;  July  8,  1771. 
The  Pennsylvania  Journal,  June  18,  1726. 

*  Scharf ,  History  of  Delaware,  i,  p.  180 ;  Smith,  History  of  Delaware 
County,  Pennsylvania,  p.  219. 

*  Martin,  Chester  and  its  Vicinity,  p.  189. 

4  Smith,  History  of  Delaware  County,  Pennsylvania,  p.  335 ;  Martin, 
Chester  and  its  Vicinity,  p.  189;  Futhey  and  Cope,  History  of  Chester 
County,  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  p.  424.  The  registralion  was  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  terms  of  the  act  of  1780,  which  provided  for  the 
registration  of  all  negro  and  mulatto  slaves  and  servants  for  life. 

8  Report  of  the  Friends'  Yearly  Meeting  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Jersies,  from  the  i$th  to  the  24th  of  the  7th  month,  1719,  p.  211. 

"Lee,  New  Jersey  as  a  Colony  and  as  a  State,  i,  p.  199. 


369]  THE  NUMBER  OF  INDIAN  SLAVES  117 

concluded  that  the  scarcity  of  Indian  slaves  was  due  to  con- 
ditions rather  than  to  scruples,  though  the  presence  of  a 
Quaker  element  may  have  affected  the  situation.  The 
proximity  of  the  powerful  Iroquois,  also,  by  shutting  off 
the  source  of  possible  supply,  may  have  had  something  to  do 
with  the  matter.  The  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  New 
Jersey  was  very  small,  yet  the  newspapers  of  the  time  show 
the  presence  of  such  a  servile  class  in  the  colony  through- 
out the  colonial  period.1 

In  Maryland,  there  appears  to  have  been  even  a  smaller 
number  of  Indian  slaves  than  in  New  Jersey.  There  were 
no  Indian  wars  to  furnish  captives,2  and  the  Indians  from 
the  Carolinas  were  sent  to  ports  in  New  England  where  the 
demand  for  them  was  greater.  In  Maryland  indentured 
servants  largely  supplied  the  need  for  laborers  and  so  mini- 
mized the  use  of  the  natives  as  slaves. 

1  Cornelius  Van  Vorst  had  a  slave  known  as  "  Half  Indian  Jack," 
who  died  at  Harsimus,  February  2,  1831,  at  the  age  of  102  years. 
Winfield,  History  of  the  County  of  Hudson,  New  Jersey,  p.  434. 

The  New  York  Gazette,  June  24,  July  8,  July  15,  July  29,  August  12, 
and  August  26,  advertises  a  runaway  Indian  slave,  and  a  second  slave, 
half  Indian  and  half  negro,  from  Monmouth  County,  New  Jersey. 
The  American  Weekly  Mercury,  October  24,  October  31,  and  Novem- 
ber 7,  1734,  advertises  a  runaway  slave,  half  Indian  and  half  negro, 
from  Perth  Amboy,  New  Jersey. 

*  The  Yoamaco  Indians  of  that  section  had  been  so  preyed  upon  by 
the  "  Susquahannocks  "  that  they  had  abandoned  their  country.  Old- 
mixon,  The  British  Empire  in  America,  etc.,  i,  p.  189. 


CHAPTER  V 
PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

OF  the  processes  in  vogue  among  the  English  for  the 
acquisition  of  Indian  slaves,  the  most  productive  was  that 
of  warfare.1  With  the  exception  of  the  Pequot  War  and 
King  Philip's  War  in  New  England,  the  Indian  wars  in 
the  English  colonies  were  confined  to  the  south,  and  there 
the  greatest  number  of  Indian  war  captives  were  enslaved. 

After  the  Indian  massacre  of  1622  in  Virginia,  there 
was  published  in  London,  in  the  same  year,  a  tract  entitled : 
"  The  Relation  of  the  Barbarous  Massacre  in  Time  of 
Peace  and  League,  treacherously  executed  by  the  native 
infidels  upon  the  English,  the  Twenty-second  of  March, 
1622,  published  by  Authority."  The  general  trend  of  the 
tract  is  to  show  the  good  that  might  result  to  the  plantation 
from  this  disaster.  Number  five  of  the  possible  results 
reads :  "  Because  the  Indians,  who  before  were  used  as 
friends,  may  now  most  justly  be  compelled  to  servitude 
in  mines,  and  the  like,  of  whom  some  may  be  sent  for  the 
use  of  the  Summer  Islands." 

The  policy  advocated  by  the  tract  was  carried  out  in  suc- 

1  Lawson,  A  New  Voyage  to  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  194,  states  that  the 
Indians  of  the  Carolina  country  refused  to  sell  their  children,  though 
they  would  sell  anything  else  they  possessed  for  wampum.  For  pre- 
cedents when  the  English  sold  white  captives  in  war,  see  Trowbridge, 
A  History  of  Ancient  Maritime  Interests  in  New  Haven,  p.  47;  Lecky, 
A  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  ii,  p.  189. 

1  Quoted  in  Bannister,  British  Colonisation  and  Colored  Tribes, 
pp.  49-54 

118  [370 


371  ]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE          IIOy 

ceeding  Indian  wars  in  Virginia.  The  accounts  of  a  certain 
Thomas  Smallcomb,  lieutenant  at  Fort  Royal  on  Pamun- 
key,  who  was  probably  killed  in  the  war  with  Opechanca- 
nough,  show  him  possessed  at  the  time  of  his  death,  1646, 
of  several  Indian  slaves.1  It  seems  probable  that  these 
slaves  were  captives  in  war.  After  his  rebellion,  1676, 
Bacon  sold  some  of  his  Indian  prisoners.2  The  rest  were 
disposed  of  by  Governor  Berkeley.3 

From  the  beginning  of  the  colony,  the  settlers  of  Caro- 
lina were  in  trouble  with  the  Indians.  In  September,  1671, 
war  was  declared  against  the  Kussoe,  a  tribe  on  the  south- 
ern frontier  who  posed  as  allies  of  the  Spaniards,  and  who 
vexed  the  Carolina  settlers  with  petty  depredations.  The 
Kussoe  were  quickly  defeated,  and  the  prisoners  sent  to  be 
sold  out  of  the  colony,  unless  ransomed  by  their  country- 
men.4 During  the  war  with  the  Stono  Indians  in  1680, 
the  captive  Indians  were  brought  to  Charleston  and  sold 
by  Governor  West  to  the  traders  in  the  colony  to  be 
carried  to  the  West  Indies  as  slaves.5 

The  breaking  out  of  the  war  of  the  Spanish  Succession 
in  1701  gave  Governor  Moore  a  chance  to  attack  the  Span- 
ish Indians,  capture  and  sell  them  under  the  excuse  of  the 
rules  of  war.  Therefore,  in  1702,  he  led  a  force  of 
militia  and  Indians  against  St.  Augustine,  burned  the  city, 

1  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  vi,  p.  214. 

1  The  Narrative  of  Bacon's  Rebellion,  in  Winder  Papers,  Virginia 
State  Library,  reprinted  in  Virginia  Magazine  of  History,  iv,  1896-1897, 
p.  140,  tells  of  forty-five  Indian  captives  taken.  "  The  plunder  and 
captives  estimated  noe  lesse  than  6  or  700,  the  goodes  being  three 
horse  loades." 

3  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  x,  p.  165.     Later  all  but 
five  were  restored  to  the  queen  by  Ingram,  one  of  Bacon's  officers. 

4  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  106. 

5  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  78;  Grahame,  The  History  of  the  United  States, 
etc.,  ii,  p.   113. 


120  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [372 

and  carried  off,  as  slaves,  whatever  Indians  he  could  ob- 
tain from  the  Spanish  Indian  villages  along  the  way.1  A 
second  attack  on  St.  Augustine  was  made  by  Moore  in 
1704,  with  the  purpose  of  destroying  missions  and  carrying 
off  slaves.2  An  advance  into  the  territories  of  the 
Apalachee  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  several  missions, 
and  the  capture  of  more  than  a  thousand  Indians,  some 
free,  some  slave.3  Nearly  all  the  Apalachee  were  distri- 
buted as  slaves  among  the  Carolina  settlers.*  The  en- 
slavement of  Indians,  indeed,  was  carried  on  wholesale. 
A  letter  to  the  proprietors,  July  10,  1708,  states  that  "  the 
garrison  of  St.  Augustine  is  by  this  war  reduced  to  the 
bare  walls,  their  cattle  and  Indian  towns  all  consumed, 
either  by  us  in  our  invasion  of  that  place,  or  by  our  Indian 
subjects  .  .  .  they  have  driven  the  Floridians  to  the  islands 
of  the  cape,  have  brought  in  and  sold  many  hundred  of 
them,  and  maybe  now  continue  that  trade,  so  that  in  some 
five  years,  they'll  reduce  the  barbarians  to  a  fearless  num- 
ber." 5  In  1708,  Colonel  Barn  well  of  South  Carolina  made 
an  expedition  to  the  Appalachian  province  of  Florida.  It 
is  thought  that  this  was  the  time  when  Captain  Nairn  of 
South  Carolina,  with  a  party  of  Yamasee  Indians,  advanced 
to  the  vicinity  of  Lake  Okechobee  and  brought  back  a 
number  of  captive  Indians  as  slaves.6  A  similar  expedi- 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  200. 

J  Religious  hatred  and  race  hatred,  as  well  as  the  desire  for  per- 
sonal gain,  dictated  Moore's  action.  Note  that  the  constant  enmity 
of  the  Spanish  and  English  Indians,  and  their  raids  upon  each  other, 
gave  him  excellent  opportunity  to  accomplish  his  purpose. 

'  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  157. 

4  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 
P.  233- 

5  Public   Records  of  South  Carolina,   v,    1700-1710,   p.    196;    British 
Public  Record  Office,  vol.  620. 

•  Fairbanks,  History  of  Florida  from  its  Discovery,  etc.,  p.  179. 


373]      PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE         I2i 

tion  of  Colonel  Palmer  in  1727  against  the  Yamasee  re- 
sulted in  the  destruction  of  many  Indian  towns,  the  slaugh- 
ter of  many  natives,  and  the  carrying  off  of  great  numbers 
to  Charleston  as  slaves.1 

As  the  result  of  the  three  expeditions  sent  by  South 
Carolina  from  1702  to  1708  against  the  Yamasee,  Apala- 
chee,  and  Timucua  of  northern  Florida,  there  was  carried 
back  to  Charleston,  for  sale-  as  slaves,  almost  the  entire 
population  of  seven  towns,  in  all,  some  1400  persons.2  The 
captives  taken  in  1715  when  the  Yamasee  and  Creek  In- 
dians made  a  foray  upon  the  South  Carolina  frontier,  were 
sold  as  slaves.  Mr.  Johnston,  a  South  Carolina  mission- 
ary of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  Parts,  in  his  letter  to  the  Society,  December  19, 
1715,  states:  "  It  is  certain  many  of  the  Yammousees  and 
Creek  Indians  were  against  the  war  all  along.  But  our 
military  men  were  so  bent  upon  revenge,  and  so  desirous 
to  enrich  themselves  by  making  all  the  Indians  slaves  that 
fall  into  yr  hands  ....  that  it  is  in  vain  to  represent 
the  cruelty  and  injustice  of  such  a  procedure  ".3 

Throughout  the  Tuscarora  War  in  North  Carolina,  In- 
dian captives  were  retained  or  sold  as  slaves.4  At  the  be- 
ginning of  military  operations,  following  the  Indian  mas- 
sacre of  1711,  the  friendly  Indians  agreed  to  help  the  Eng- 
lish against  their  enemy  upon  promise  of  a  reward  of  six 
blankets  for  each  man  killed  by  them,  and  the  usual  price 

1  Fairbanks,  op.  cit.,  p.  189;  Fairbanks,  The  History  and  Antiquities 
of  the  City  of  St.  Augustine,  etc.,  p.  139. 

*  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  p.  875 ;  pt.  ii,  p.  600. 

3  Records   of   the   Society   for   the   Propagation    of   the   Gospel    in 
Foreign  Parts. 

*  A  few  Indians  were  captured  before  this,  and  a  few  more  were 
imported,   like   other   slaves.     B asset t,   Slavery  and   Servitude   in   the 
Colony  of  North  Carolina,  p.  72,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies, 
xiv. 


I22  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [374 

of  slaves  for  each  woman  and  child  delivered  as  captives.1 
During  the  course  of  the  war  several  hundred  Indian  allies 
were  used  by  the  English,2  and  these  allies  took  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  to  obtain  large  number  of  Indian  cap- 
tives to  sell  to  the  slave  traders  of  the  time. 

In  an  attack  on  an  Indian  fort  in  1711,  thirty-nine  wo- 
men and  children  were  captured  and  disposed  of  in  the 
settlements  as  slaves.3  The  two  chief  expeditions  during 
the  war  were  those  of  Colonel  Barnwell,  who  was  sent  by 
South  Carolina  in  January,  1712,  and  of  Colonel  Moore  in 
January  and  February,  1713.  Colonel  BarnwelFs  expedi- 
tion took  two  hundred  Indian  women  and  children 
prisoners.4  The  expedition  of  Colonel  Moore  virtually 
ended  the  war  by  capturing  the  fort  in  which  the  Tuscarora 
had  taken  refuge.5  Nine  hundred  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren were  killed  or  taken  prisoners.6  In  both  expeditions 
the  allied  Indians  secured  as  many  as  possible  of  the  cap- 
tured Indians  whom  they  took  along  with  them  to  sell  as 
slaves  in  Charleston,7  and  they  still  further  increased  their 
supply  of  slaves  by  attacking  the  peaceful  Indians  along 
the  route  of  their  return  to  South  Carolina.8  During  the 
course  of  the  war  more  than  seven  hundred  Indians  were 
sold  into  slavery.9 

The  earliest  of  the  slave-producing  wars  in  New  England 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  i,  p.  815. 

1  McCrady,  The  History  of  South  Carolina  under  Proprietary  Gov- 
ernment, p.  499. 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  i,  p.  826. 

'Ibid.,  i,  p.  875.  '° Ibid.,  ii,  p.  iv.  6  Ibid.,  i,  p.  826. 

T  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  30;  McCrady,  op.  cit.,  p.  526;  South  Carolina  Historical 
and  Genealogical  Magazine,  ix,  1908,  pp.  33,  39,  41. 

8  McCrady,  op.  cit.,  p.  566 ;  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South 
Carolina,   etc.,    p.    254;    South    Carolina    Historical   and    Genealogical 
Magazine,  viii,  1908,  pp.  28-54. 

9  Bassett,  op.  cit.,  p.  73,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiv. 


375]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

was  that  with  the  Pequot  in  1637.  The  war  consisted  of 
two  battles :  the  Mistick  Fight,  and  the  Swamp  Fight.  In 
the  first  of  these  two  events,  but  seven  captives  were  taken.1 
In  the  second,  the  Swamp  Fight,  about  one  hundred  and 
eighty  captives  were  taken.2  Two  of  the  sachems  taken  in 
the  Swamp  Fight  were  spared,  on  promise  that  they  guide 
the  English  to  the  retreat  of  Sassacus.  The  other  men 
captives,  some  twenty  or  thirty  in  number,  were  put  to 
death.3  The  remaining  captives,  consisting  of  about  eighty 
women  and  children,  were  divided.  Some  were  given  to 
the  soldiers,  whether  gratis  or  for  pay  does  not  appear. 
Thirty  were  given  to  the  Narraganset  who  were  allies  of 
the  English,  forty-eight  were  sent  to  Massachusetts  and 
the  remainder  were  assigned  to  Connecticut.4  The  women 

1  These  Indians  had  never  forgotten  the  seizure  of  twenty-seven  of 
their  number  by  Thomas  Hunt  who  had  been  in  Smith's  expedition 
•of  1614,  and  were,  in  consequence,  always  antagonistic  to  the  whites. 
As  the  result  of  their  depredations,  the  Connecticut  general  court, 
May  i,  1637,  declared  an  offensive  war  against  them.  See  copy  of  the 
court  record  in  Orr,  History  of  the  Pequot  War,  etc.,  p.  ix.  Mason 
records  that  one  cause  of  not  pursuing  the  Indians  farther  was  the 
Sabbath  coming  on.  Mason,  A  Brief  Narrative  of  the  Pequot  War, 
in  Orr,  op.  cit.,  p.  34. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  39. 

3  Winthrop,  Journal  History  of  New  England,  i,  p.  225,  in  Original 
Narratives  of  Early  American  History;  Hubbard,  A  Narrative  of  the 
Indian   Wars  in  New  England,   p.   42.     They  were  carried   into  the 
harbor  and  drowned.     Mather,  Magnalia,  edition  of  1820,  ii,  p.  483. 

It  has  been  stated  that  Massachusetts  made  no  effort  to  retain  the 
captive  male  Pequot  as  slaves  because  of  the  admonition  given  in 
Leviticus,  xxiv,  44,  that  the  heathen  of  the  land  in  which  the 
Israelitish  people  dwelt  were  not  to  be  enslaved,  but  only  those  "  that 
were  round  about  them" — the  Ammonites,  Moabites,  Edomites,  and 
Syrians,  whose  utter  extermination  had  not  been  expressly  decreed. 
Historical  Magazine,  x,  p.  49. 

4  Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  p.  225,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  Ameri- 
ican  History;   Bradford,  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation,  p.  342,  in 
Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History.     Winthrop  states  the 


I24  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [376 

and  girls  of  the  Massachusetts  captives  were  distributed 
among  the  towns.1  It  seems  probable  that  Connecticut 
made  a  similar  disposition  of  its  share  of  the  captives  re- 
gardless of  sex.2  The  male  children  among  the  Massachu- 
setts captives  were  ordered  by  the  Massachusetts  gen- 
eral court,  1637,  to  be  carried  to  the  Bermudas  by  Wil- 
liam Pierce,  and  sold  there  as  slaves.3  The  shipload  of 
Indians,  however,  consisting  of  fifteen  boys  and  two  wo- 
men was  taken  by  Captain  Pierce  to  the  West  Indies, 
instead  of  to  the  Bermudas,  and  disposed  of  at  the  island 
of  Providence.4  One  Pequot  seized  near  Block  Island 
was  sent  to  England.5 

It  is  possible  that  this  single  cargo  of  women  and  children 

number  of  captives  as  eighty.  This  is  evidently  an  error,  for  the  sum 
of  those  whom  he  mentions  as  disposed  of  is  eighty-three.  Mason, 
op.  cit.,  in  Orr,  op.  cit.,  p.  39,  gives  the  number  of  captives  as  one 
hundred  and  eighty. 

A  division  of  the  Indian  captives  among  the  allies  would  tend  to 
draw  them  nearer  to  the  English.  It  was  for  this  reason,  and  because 
the  Indians  enslaved  at  the  first  division  of  captives  persisted  in  run- 
ning away,  that  all  the  Indians  of  the  second  division  were  not  en- 
slaved. The  Indians  distributed  among  the  friendly  Indians  did  not 
become  their  slaves.  In  the  case  of  the  Narraganset,  Roger  Williams 
informed  Governor  Winthrop,  June,  1637,  that  they  did  not  desire  to 
use  the  Pequot  as  slaves,  but  preferred  to  treat  them  kindly,  and  grant 
them  houses  and  lands.  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections, 
series  4,  vi,  p.  195. 

1  Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  p.  225,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  Ameri- 
can History. 

J  Steiner,  History  of  Slavery  in  Connecticut,  p.  9,  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  xi. 

1  Morton,  op.  cit.,  104;  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections. 
series  4,  iii,  p.  360.  In  the  Swamp  Fight  the  Indians  were  attacked  by 
the  combined  forces  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  Hence  the 
division  of  the  captives  between  the  two  colonies. 

4  Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  p.  260,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  Ameri- 
can History;  Bradford,  op.  cit.,  p.  342,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early 
American  History. 

5  Winthrop,    Journal,    i,    p.    225,    in    Original    Narratives    of   Early 
American  History. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

was  not  the  only  one  sent  to  the  islands  at  this  time.  A 
letter  from  the  Company  of  Providence  Islands,  replying 
from  London,  July  3,  1638,  to  letters  from  authorities  on 
the  island,  and  directing  that  special  care  be  taken  of  the 
"  cannibal  negroes  brought  from  New  England,"  *  and  a 
second  letter  written  in  1639,  when  the  company,  fearing 
the  danger  that  might  arise  from  too  large  a  number  of 
negroes  on  the  island,  suggested  that  the  negroes  be  sold 
or  sent  to  New  England  or  Virginia,2  may  possibly  have 
been  called  forth  by  a  further  purchase  of  Indians,  or  by 
an  exchange  of  negroes  for  them. 

By  the  time  of  King  Philip's  War,  1675-1676,  the  colon- 
ists were  well  accustomed  to  the  sending  of  Indian  captives 
out  of  the  country,  and  to  the  use  of  them  in  their  homes.3 
The  policy  followed  toward  the  Indians  captured  in  this 
war  was  the  same  as  that  shown  in  the  Pequot  War.  The 
captives  were  either  exported  for  sale  in  the  European  or 
West  Indian  slave  markets,  or  were  retained  in  servitude 
in  the  colonies.  In  the  beginning  of  the  war,  Captain 
Mosely  captured  eighty  Indians,  who  were  retained  at 
Plymouth.  In  the  following  September,  one  hundred  and 
seventy-eight  were  put  on  board  a  vessel  commanded  by 
Captain  Sprague  who  sailed  from  Plymouth  with  them 
for  Spain.4  In  this  same  year,  1675,  Indians,  probably 
from  the  coast  of  Maine,  were  landed  as  slaves  at  Fayal, 
one  of  the  Azores.5  Again  in  1675,  fifteen  Indians  were 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  i,  1574-1660,  p.  278. 

1  Ibid.,  i,  p.  296. 

*  Freeman,  Civilization  and  Barbarism,  p.  64,  declares  that  the  en- 
slaving of  Indians  had  become  a  mania  with  speculators. 

4  Williamson,  The  History  of  the  State  of  Maine,  etc.,  i,  p.  531 ; 
Drake,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  ninth  edition,  bk.  iii,  p.  40. 

'Drake's  Note  in  Hubbard,  A  Narrative  of  the  Indian  Wars  in  New 
England,  etc.,  ii,  p.  94. 


I26  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [378 

captured  and  sent  to  Boston,  "  tied  neck  to  neck,  like  galley 
slaves."  Much  against  the  will  of  the  populace  they  were 
given  a  trial.  All  were  finally  acquitted  except  two  who 
were  sentenced  to  be  sold  out  of  the  country  as  slaves.1 
During  the  years  1675  and  1676,  one  finds  mention  of  the 
sale  of  Indians  in  Plymouth  in  groups  of  about  a  hundred,2 
fifty-seven,3  three,4  one  hundred  and  sixty,5  ten,6  and  one.7 
From  June  25,  1675  to  September  23,  1676,  the  records 
show  the  sale  by  the  Plymouth  colonial  authorities  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty-eight  Indians.8 

In  the  Massachusetts  Bay  colony  a  similar  disposal  of 
captives  was  accomplished.  On  one  occasion  about  two 
hundred  were  transported  and  sold.9  There  is  extant  a 
paper  written  by  Daniel  Gookin  in  1676,  one  item  of  which 
is  as  follows :  "  a  list  of  the  Indian  children  that  came  in 
with  John  of  Packachooge."  The  list  shows  twenty-one 
boys  and  eleven  girls  distributed  throughout  the  colony.10 

With  the  close  of  the  war  after  Philip's  death,  many  of 
the  Indian  chiefs  were  executed  at  Boston  and  Plymouth, 
and  most  of  the  remaining  chiefs  with  their  captive  fol- 
lowers were  sold  and  shipped  off  as  slaves  outside  the 
colonies.11  Those  transported  were  carried  to  various  parts : 

1  Bodge,  Soldiers  in  King  Philip's  War,  p.  209. 

*  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  173.  s  Ibid.,  v,  p.  174. 

4  Felt,  The  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  ii,  p.  576. 

5  Baylies,  Historical  Memoir  of  New  Plymouth,  ii,  pt.  iii,  pp.  47-48; 
Church,  The  History  of  King  Philip's  War,  Dexter  edition,  p.  147. 

*  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iii,  p.  75. 

7  Hough,  A  Narrative  of  the  Causes  which  led  to  Philip's  Indian 
War  of  1675-1676,  pp.  188-189. 

8  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  173;  ix,  p.  401. 

9  Hough,  op.  cit,  p.  25;  Felt,  Annals  of  Salem,  second  edition,  i,  p.  507. 
10  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  viii,  pp.  270-272. 
"  Hutchinson,  The  History  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  etc., 

i,  p.  306. 


379]     PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:   WARFARE       I2J 

the  Spanish  West  Indies,  Spain,  Portugal,  Bermuda,  Vir- 
ginia,1 and  the  Azores.2 

Not  all  the  Indians  whose  lives  were  spared  were  trans- 
ported.3 Generally  the  men,  rather  than  the  women  and 
children,  were  thus  disposed  of,  though  such  was  not  al- 
ways the  case.  One  finds  instances,  like  that  of  Philip's 
wife  and  son,4  when  women  and  children  were  trans- 
ported, and  other  instances  when  grown  male  Indians 
were  retained  in  the  colonies  and  sold  to  the  colonists.5 

Not  only  were  the  Indians  who  themselves  engaged  in 
the  war  sold  as  slaves  at  home  and  abroad,  but  the  wives 
and  children  of  the  captive  males  were  also  seized  and  con- 

1  Ellis  and  Morris,  King  Philip' s  War,  p.  287. 

'Drake's  note  in  Hubbard,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  94.  These  Indians  did  not 
sell  well  abroad,  for  doubtless  former  experience  had  proved  fcheir  race 
to  be  unsatisfactory  as  slaves.  In  one  instance,  when  no  immediate 
market  could  be  found,  a  number  of  them  were  left  in  the  slave  market 
of  Algiers  from  which,  by  the  efforts  of  John  Eliot,  they  were  enabled 
to  return  to  America  in  1683.  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, series  i,  ii,  p.  183.  Of  this  incident  Cotton  Mather  said: 
"Moreover,  'tis  a  prophecy  in  Deut.  28:  68,  'The  Lord  shall  bring 
thee  into  Egypt  again  with  ships,  by  the  way  whereof  I  spake  unto 
thee.  Thou  shalt  see  it  no  more  again;  and  there  ye  shall  be  sold  unto 
your  enemies  for  bondmen  and  bondwomen,  and  no  man  shall  buy  you.' 
These  did  our  Eliot  imagine  were  sent  to  be  sold  in  the  coasts  lying 
not  very  far  from  the  coasts  of  Egypt,  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and 
scarce  any  chapman  would  offer  to  take  them  off."  Magnalia, 
bk.  iii,  pt.  3. 

8  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iii,  p.  190. 

4 For  a  discussion  of  the  treatment  of  Philip's  wife  and  son,  see 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  4,  viii,  p.  689.  For 
the  opinions  of  the  two  eminent  divines  to  whom  the  matter  of  their 
disposal  was  referred  before  colonial  action  was  taken,  see  Baylies, 
op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iii,  p.  190. 

5  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  vi,  p.  15.  The  Boston  Book  of  Pos- 
sessions, p.  145  (Quoted  in  Corey,  The  History  of  Maiden,  p.  48),  con- 
tains a  proclamation  issued  by  Governor  Leverett,  September  23,  1675, 
relating  to  the  sale  of  seven  male  Indians  to  two  colonists  who  were  to 
transport  and  sell  them  anywhere  they  wished. 


128  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES        [380 

signed  to  slavery.  In  1677,  the  Massachusetts  genera} 
court  ordered  that  the  Indian  children,  boys  and  girls, 
whose  parents  had  been  in  hostility  with  the  colony  or 
had  lived  among  its  enemies  in  the  time  of  the  war,  and 
who  were  taken  by  force  and  given  or  sold  to  any  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  colony,  should  be  at  the  disposal  of  their 
masters  or  their  assignees.1  In  the  case  of  a  certain  Pray- 
ing Indian,  who  withdrew  from  the  English  side  and 
joined  the  Indian  enemy,  not  only  himself,  but  his  wife 
and  children  were  taken  prisoners  and  held  as  slaves  until 
redeemed  by  Eliot.2  The  same  policy  was  followed  in 
Plymouth.  A  case  in  point  is  that  of  the  chief,  Popanooie, 
whose  wife  and  children  were  retained  in  the  colony  as 
slaves,  while  he  himself  was  transported  and  sold  into 
slavery.3 

Both  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts  made  a  distinction 
between  the  children  of  those  Indian  enemies  who  were 
taken  by  force,  and  those  who  voluntarily  gave  themselves 
up  to  the  colonial  authorities.  The  children  of  the  latter 
were  to  serve  as  slaves  only  until  twenty-four  years  of 
age.  The  term  of  service  of  the  former  was  not  specified.4 
Neither  Rhode  Island  nor  Connecticut  transported  Indian 
slaves  to  the  West  Indies.  Both  colonies,  however,  retained 
Indian  captives  of  King  Philip's  War,  but  only  for  limited 
periods  of  time,  not  for  life.  During  the  war  numerous 
bands  of  the  Indians  surrendered  to  the  English  at  Provi- 

1  Shurtleff ,  Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massaschu- 
setts  Bay  in  New  England,  v,  p.  136. 

8  Gookin,  History  of  the  Christian  Indians,  in  American  Antiquar- 
ian Society  Proceedings,  1836,  ii,  p.  449. 

8  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  244. 

4  Shurtleff,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  136;  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  pp.  207, 
223;  vi,  p.  15.  The  Plymouth  general  court  required  that  the  magis- 
trates who  disposed  of  such  Indian  children  according  to  the  order  of 
the  court,  should  sign  "indentures  for  such  as  are  so  disposed,  to  pre- 
vent further  differences."  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  vi,  p.  15. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE          I2g 

dence  and  Newport.  The  sentiment  of  the  colony  against 
enslaving  Indians,  here,  as  in  Connecticut,  the  result  of 
Quaker  influence,1  had  already  been  shown.  So,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  spirit  already  expressed,  it  was  voted  by  the 
town  of  Providence,  August  14,  1676,  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee of  five  persons  to  dispose  of  the  Indians  there.2 
The  town  agreed  to  abide  by  the  action  of  the  five  men.3 
The  committee  decided  to  sell  the  Indians  in  the  colony  for 
a  term  of  years;  one-half  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  to  go  to 
the  captors,  and  the  other  half  to  the  public  treasury.  The 
length  of  service  was  to  depend  upon  the  Indians'  ages. 
Those  under  five  years  were  to  be  simple  bondsmen  till 
thirty ;  all  above  five  years,  and  under  ten,  till  thirty-eight ; 
above  ten  and  under  fifteen,  till  twenty-seven ;  above  fifteen 
and  under  twenty,  till  twenty-six;  such  as  were  above 
thirty,  seven  years.  Several  receipts  signed  by  this  com- 
mittee show  that  such  sales  occurred.4  A  few  days  before, 
the  Rhode  Island  companies  had  brought  in  forty-two  In- 

1  In  1676,  as  well  as  several  years  before  and  after,  the  government 
of  Rhode  Island  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Quakers.  Staples,  Annals  of 
Providence,  p.  169.  No  organized  effort  against  the  system  of  slavery 
in  general  was  made  in  Rhode  Island  until  that  of  the  Quakers,  1717. 
Weeden,  Early  Rhode  Island,  p.  188. 

1  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections,  v,  p.  170;  Rhode 
Island  Historical  Society  Publications,  new  series,  i,  p.  234.  This  same 
town  meeting  freed  certain  Indians  and  gave  them  the  rights  of  in- 
habitants, and  sentenced  others  to  be  shot  for  crime.  Early  Records 
of  Providence,  viii,  p.  12.  These  Indian  captives  were  carried  to  the 
port  in  a  vessel  belonging  to  Providence  Williams,  son  of  Roger  Wil- 
liams. Staples,  op.  cit.,  p.  172. 

*  Roger  Williams  was  a  member  of  this  committee. 

4  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Publications,  i,  pp.  236-238;  Arnold, 
History  of  Rhode  Island,  i,  p.  425.  For  examples  of  indentures  or 
bills  of  sale,  and  receipts  returned  to  the  committee,  see  Early  Records 
of  the  Town  of  Portsmouth,  pp.  430-433 ;  vol.  01087  of  the  Town  Rec- 
ords of  Providence.  See  Report  of  Record  Commissioners  on  Proii- 
dence  Town  Records. 


I30  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [382 

dian  captives.  These,  and  all  other  Indian  prisoners  held 
at  the  time,  were  sold  into  service  in  the  colony  for  a 
period  of  nine  years.1  The  Indians  thus  sentenced  did  not 
become  actual  slaves  according  to  the  strictest  interpreta- 
tion of  the  term,  since  the  persons  who  acquired  them  pur- 
chased only  their  services  for  a  stated  period  of  time,  and 
not  for  life.  Their  condition  is  better  explained  by  the 
term  "  involuntary  indenture  ". 

During  King  Philip's  War  Connecticut  suffered  noth- 
ing on  its  own  soil  from  hostile  Indians.  In  consequence 
the  number  of  captive  Indians  enslaved  was  small,  and  only 
infrequent  mention  is  found  of  these  captives.  A  certain 
amount  of  the  booty  which  the  Connecticut  troops  as- 
sisted in  taking  fell  to  their  lot,  and  among  this  booty  were 
some  of  the  captive  Indians.  An  interesting  record  of  such 
a  slave  is  found  in  the  account  book  of  Major  John  Talcot 
(1674-1688)  which  includes  his  accounts  as  treasurer  of 
the  colony  during  King  Philip's  War.  On  opposite  pages 
of  the  ledger  occurs  the  following  account  (54-55)  :  "1676. 
Captain  John  Stanton  of  Stonington,  Dr.,  to  Sundry  Com- 
missions given  Captain  Stanton  to  proceed  against  the  In- 
dians by  which  he  gained  much  on  the  sale  of  captives  ". 
"  Contra,  1677,  April  30.  Per  received  an  Indian  girl  of 
him,  about  seven  years  old,  which  he  gave  me  for  commis- 
sions on  the  other  side,  or,  at  best,  out  of  good  will  for  any 
kindness  to  him  ".2 

In  consequence  of  the  small  number  of  Indian  captives 
enslaved  in  the  colony,  none  was  transported  by  colonial 
action.  The  privilege  of  thus  getting  rid  of  undesirable 
and  troublesome  Indian  slaves  by  selling  them  out  of  the 

1  Richman,  Rhode  Island,  its  Making  and  its  Meaning,  ii,  p.    192 ; 
Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations 
in  New  England,  ii,  p.  549. 

2  Orcutt,  The  History  of  the  old  Town  of  Derby,  Connecticut,  p.  Ivii. 


383]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE          ^ 

colony,  was,  however,  conferred  upon  individual  owners, 
when,  May  10,  1677,  the  general  court  decreed:  "  for  the 
prevention  of  those  Indians  running  away,  that  are  dis- 
posed in  service  by  the  Authority,  that  are  of  the  enemy 
and  have  submitted  to  mercy,  such  Indians,  if  they  be  taken, 
shall  be  in  the  power  of  his  master  to  dispose  of  him  as  a 
captive  by  transportation  out  of  the  country  'V 

During  the  Indian  wars  in  Virginia  Governor  Berkeley 
himself  in  a  letter,  1668,  to  Robert  Smith,  militia  com- 
mander in  the  Rappahannock  country,  not  only  proposed 
that,  with  the  consent  of  the  council  of  war,  a  war  of  ex- 
tinction be  waged  against  the  northern  Indians,  but  also 
suggested  that  the  colonial  government  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  undertaking  by  the  disposal  of  the  women  and  chil- 
dren.2 Smith  submitted  Governor  Berkeley's  letter  to  the 
Rappahannock  court  for  approval.  In  rendering  their  de- 
cision, the  justices  declared  that  the  conduct  of  the  north- 
ern Indians,  notably  the  "  Doagges  "  and  the  neighboring 
Indians,  justified  the  taking  of  severe  measures  against 
them ;  and  accordingly  advised  "  with  the  assistance  of 
Almighty  God,  by  the  strength  of  our  northern  part,  ut- 
terly to  eradicate  [them],  without  further  encroachment 
than  the  spoils  of  our  enemies  ".3 

During  Bacon's  rebellion  in  1676,  the  assembly  at  his 
instigation  declared  the  enslavement  of  Indians  for  life  to 
be  legal,  and  made  provision  for  granting  captive  Indians 
to  soldiers  as  a  partial  inducement  to  volunteer.4  This  act 
was  repealed  by  the  general  act  setting  aside  all  the  acts  of 
this  assembly  that  sat  in  1676  under  the  rule  of  Bacon.8 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  308. 

J  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  viii,  p.  165. 

8  Ibid.,  viii.  p.  165. 

4  Hening,  The  Statutes  at  Large,  etc.,  ii,  pp.  346,  404. 

9  Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  Historical  and  Biographical,  first  edi- 
tion, p.  18. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [384 

But  it  was  again  revived  by  the  assembly  of  1679  called  by 
Deputy-Governor  Chicheley.1  Legal  enslavement  of  In- 
dians was  prohibited  by  implication  rather  than  by  the 
terms  of  the  act  of  1691. 2  But  the  North  Carolina  Indian 
troubles  in  November,  1711,  once  more  brought  the  old  law 
forward,  and  captive  Indians  belonging  to  tribes  at  war 
with  the  English  were  directed  to  be  transported  and  sold, 
those  capturing  them  to  have  the  money  of  the  sale.3 

It  will  be  noted  that,  though  in  the  case  of  Virginia,  as 
in  that  of  the  other  colonies,  the  disposal  of  the  Indians 
captured  in  war  was  sanctioned  by  the  colonial  govern- 
ment, the  action  of  the  Virginia  government  in  the  matter 
ended  with  that  sanction.  By  the  acts  of  1643  *  and  1658,* 
the  colony  lost  the  right  to  possess  servants.  Therefore, 
the  government  during  the  Indian  wars  decreed  that  the 
captive  Indians  were  the  property  of  their  captors  who 
were  entitled  to  the  proceeds  of  their  sale.6 

In  the  case  of  Maryland  is  found  another  colony  in 
which  the  government  intended  that  Indian  captives  taken 
in  war  should  be  sold  for  the  benefit  of  the  colony.  At  the 
time  of  the  Puritan  ascendency  the  Indians  began  to  be 
troublesome.7  The  Nanticoke  of  the  Eastern  shore  began 
a  war  upon  the  settlers.  March  29,  1652,  on  petition  of  the 
settlers,  the  general  assembly  attempted  to  pass  a  militia 
act.  An  expedition  was  planned,  and  a  levy  of  troops 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  404,  440;  Virginia  Magazine  of  History, 
"»  P-  J73-  This  law  is  almost  a  literal  transcript  of  Bacon's  law. 

1  Ballagh,  A  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies,  extra  volume  xxiv,  pp.  35,  50;  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp. 
346,  404- 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  iv.  p.  10.       *  Ibid.,  \,  p.  259.         5  Ibid.,  i,  p.  459. 

G  Indians  held  in  captivity  before  1670  were  not  slaves  but  servants. 
See  Chapter  ix. 

7  Before  that  time,  the  Indians  had  given  little  or  no  trouble,  and  the 
colony  had  never  passed  a  militia  act. 


385]      PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

made.1  The  captive  Indians  were  to  be  sold.  But  the 
government  never  had  a  chance  to  carry  out  any  such 
sale,  for  the  Puritans  of  Anne  Arundel  County  refused  to 
make  their  levies,  and  the  expedition  had  to  be  abandoned.2 

During  the  Tuscarora  War  in  North  Carolina,  one  again 
finds  an  instance  of  a  colonial  government  taking  possession 
of  the  captive  Indians,  selling  them  as  slaves,  and  deposit- 
ing the  proceeds  of  the  sales  in  the  colonial  treasury.  At 
the  breaking  out  of  the  war  Governor  Hyde  instructed  the 
agents  whom  he  sent  to  South  Carolina  to  ask  for  military 
aid  to  represent  to  the  colonial  authorities  there  "  the 
great  advantage  that  may  be  made  of  slaves,  there  being 
many  hundreds  of  them,  women  and  children;  may  we  not 
believe  three  or  four  thousand  ".3  The  colony,  indeed, 
found  the  disposal  of  the  captives  to  be  as  profitable  as  had 
been  hoped.  The  promised  reward  of  slaves  as  pay  for 
services  rendered  brought  the  desired  Indian  allies.  On 
one  occasion,  Tom  Blount,  chief  of  a  tribe  of  friendly  In- 
dians in  the  area  of  disturbance,  in  making  arrangements 
with  the  colonial  government  for  an  attack  on  a  certain 
tribe,  specified  that  his  warriors  receive  payment  in  cap- 
tives, and  failing  these,  in  other  commodities.4 

The  journals  of  the  North  Carolina  council  for  June  25, 
1713,  show  negotiations  between  acting  Governor  Pollock 
and  the  council  for  the  purchase  of  a  number  of  Indians  for 
shipment  to  the  West  Indies.5  It  was  sometimes  a  problem 

1  Every  seventh  man  was  to  be  pressed  into  service.  William  Fuller 
was  appointed  to  command. 

1  Allen,  A  Calendar  of  Maryland  State  Papers,  i,  p.  54.  This  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  only  attempt  made  by  Maryland  to  enslave  In- 
dian war  captives. 

3  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  i,  p.  900;  ii,  p.  iv. 

4  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  305. 

5  Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  iv,  52 ;  Williamson,  History  of  North  Carolina,  i,  p.  289. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [386 

to  provide  for  the  captured  Indians;  consequently  in  the 
same  year  the  assembly  chartered  a  private  sloop  to  carry 
away  captives  brought  by  friendly  Indians.1 

In  South  Carolina,  the  Indian  captives  taken  in  the  early 
war  with  the  Kussoe  were  sold  as  slaves  by  governor  and 
council  with  the  sanction  of  the  proprietors,  who,  though 
they  had  forbidden  the  enslavement  of  Indians  in  the  tem- 
porary laws  sent  out  to  Governor  Sayle  in  1671,  were 
nevertheless  the  first  to  grant  the  privilege  of  selling  In- 
dian captives  from  Carolina  to  the  West  Indies,  as  the 
cheapest  means  of  "  encouraging  the  soldiers  of -the  infant 
colony  ".2  Accordingly,  when  war  broke  out  with  the 
Stono  Indians  in  1680,  Governor  West,  taking  advantage 
of  the  precedent  already  established  and  the  expressed  sanc- 
tion of  the  proprietors  for  such  an  action,  offered  a  price 
for  every  Indian  that  should  be  taken  and  brought  to 
Charleston,8  and  obtained  the  funds  he  needed  for  defense 
by  selling  the  Indians  to  the  traders.*  The  plan  proved 
successful,  so  successful,  in  fact,  as  to  arouse  the  jealousy 
of  the  proprietors,  for  West  appropriated  some  of  the 
profits  for  his  own  benefit.  The  proprietors  sanctioned 
the  sale  of  Indians  taken  in  actual  warfare  for  the  benefit 
of  the  colony,  which  meant  for  their  own  benefit.  Their 
title  to  the  colony  rested  upon  the  claims  of  England  to 
this  territory  by  right  of  conquest.5  The  Indians  were  the 
captives  and  the  conquered  people  of  that  conquest.  By 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  45. 

*  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  132. 

1  Lands  were  also  given  as  reward  for  valor,  but  they  were  not  ac- 
ceptable for  the  people  had  no  laborers  to  work  them.  Hewat,  op.  cit., 
i,  P.  78. 

4  Hewat,  op  .cit.,  i,  p.  74. 

5  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  Lewis  edition, 
1898,  i,  p.  108. 


387]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE         135 

the  rules  of  war  the  conquered  people  were  at  the  mercy 
and  disposal  of  the  conquerors,  and  since  the  proprietors 
found  more  profit  in  selling  than  in  killing  the  captive  In- 
dians, they  naturally  resented  West's  taking  their  profits 
for  other  purposes. 

By  the  time  of  the  wars  in  the  early  eighteenth  century, 
the  power  of  the  proprietors  was  broken,  and  the  assembly 
took  charge  of  the  matter  of  disposing  of  captives  in  war. 
An  act  passed  September  10,  1702,  provided  that  the  In- 
dian slaves  taken  by  the  Yamasee  and  the  other  Indian 
allies  on  the  expedition  to  St.  Augustine  in  1702,  should 
be  bought  only  by  a  committee  of  four  named  by  the  as- 
sembly. The  slaves  would  then  be  disposed  of  to  help  meet 
the  expenses  of  the  expedition.1  But  the  committee  ne- 
glected to  carry  out  its  instructions,  and  another  act  of 
May  8,  1703,  provided  that  the  slaves  taken  on  the  expedi- 
tion might  be  bought  by  anyone,  and  the  Indian  allies  be 
thus  encouraged.2 

That  all  the  Indian  captives  taken  on  the  second  expe- 
dition to  St.  Augustine  in  1704  were  not  sold  as  slaves 
was  due  to  an  order  of  the  assembly  expressed  through  the 
governor.3  Moore  lamented  this  fact,  as  the  plunder  of 
his  men,  which  he  estimated  should  have  been  f  100  to  a 
man,  would  thus  be  much  diminished.  That  he  still  hoped 
with  the  governor's  assistance  "  to  find  a  way  to  gratify 
them  for  the  loss  of  blood  ",  may  mean  that  he  had  not  yet 
given  up  the  idea  of  selling  those  Indian  captives  whom  he 
called  "  free  ".4 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  ii,  pp.  189,  212. 

5  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  212. 

1  In  1703,  Sir  Nathaniel  Johnson  succeeded  Moore  as  governor. 

4  In  a  letter  to  the  governor  of  South  Carolina,  May  i,  1704,  Moore 
states  that  he  has  taken  all  the  people  of  three  towns,  and  the  greatest 
part  of  four  more,  and  that  he  has  with  him  thirteen  hundred  free 
Apalachee  Indians  and  one  hundred  slaves.  Carroll,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp. 
574-576. 


136  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [388 

As  a  part  of  the  preparation  for  self-defense  made  by 
South  Carolina  in  1707  and  1708,  acts  were  passed  giving 
the  commanding  officer  of  any  expedition  the  power  of 
commissioner  to  buy  all  prisoners  of  the  Indian  enemy 
above  the  age  of  twelve  years  that  should  be  taken  cap- 
tive by  the  white  forces  or  the  Indian  allies.  The  slaves 
so  bought  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  public  receiver,  who 
was  directed  to  pay  for  them  not  to  exceed  the  sum  of  £7 
for  every  Indian,  and  then  to  ship  them  to  the  islands  of 
the  West  Indies  for  sale,  or  to  dispose  of  them  within  the 
colony  for  the  use  of  the  public  to  any  person  who  would 
enter  into  bonds,  with  the  penalty  of  £200,  not  to  send  or 
carry  any  slave  so  bought  to  any  place  within  the  province, 
or  to  the  northward  thereof.  Any  white  person  refusing 
to  sell  such  slave  to  the  commanding  officer,  must  dispose 
or  the  slave  himself,  as  before  described,  within  the  space 
of  one  month,  or  forfeit  the  same  to  the  receiver  for  the 
use  of  the  public,  to  be  disposed  of  as  aforesaid.1  In  1715, 
however,  the  law  was  changed  so  as  to  read  that  all  Indian 
enemies  captured  should  be  handed  over  to  the  public  re- 
ceiver for  the  use  of  the  public,  the  receiver  to  sell  such  as 
slaves  to  those  who  would  pay  the  highest  price,  and  who 
would  promise  to  export  them  from  the  colony  within  the 
period  of  two  months  after  the  sale.2 

During  the  French  and  Indian  War,  the  Cherokee  In- 
dians began  hostilities  with  the  English.  North  Carolina, 
in  the  provisions  made  in  1760  for  raising  troops  against 
them,  offered  to  anyone  who  took  captive  "  an  enemy  In- 
dian "  the  right  to  hold  him  as  a  slave.3  By  the  treaty  con- 
cluded by  South  Carolina  with  the  Cherokee  at  the  close 
of  the  war,  it  was  provided  that  the  captives  on  each 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  ii,  pp.  322,  325. 

1  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  637. 

3  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 


389]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE         I^ 

side  should  be  given  up.  The  North  Carolinians,  how- 
ever, followed  the  policy  advocated  in  1760,  and  the  In- 
dians accordingly  retaliated  by  carrying  off  two  white  girls 
from  South  Carolina  to  Pensacola,  and  demanded,  before 
releasing  them,  that  those  of  their  own  people  held  in  cap- 
tivity should  first  be  given  up.1 

In  both  of  the  New  England  Indian  wars  discussed,  the 
disposal  of  the  captives  fell  under  the  immediate  juris- 
diction of  the  respective  colonial  governments,  and  was 
carried  on  either  by  the  general  court,  as  in  the  case  of 
Massachusetts,  or  by  a  council  of  war  which  was  a  com- 
mittee of  the  general  court,  as  in  the  case  of  Plymouth. 
Though  during  the  Pequot  War  Connecticut  sent  no 
Indians  to  the  West  Indies,  still  it  was  customary  for  the 
government  to  sell  them  out  of  the  colony  during  the  period 
following  the  war.  This  appears  from  a  law  passed  in 
1656  by  the  general  court,  forbidding  such  sale  outside  the 
boundaries  of  "  the  other  three  colonies  ",  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  authorities  of  the  plantation  "  under  the  penalty 
of  £10  for  each  default  ".2 

The  attitude  of  the  New  England  colonial  governments, 

Una,  etc.,  edition  of  1804,  p.  135.  If  such  an  Indian  should  be  killed, 
the  captor  was  to  secure  £10  from  the  public,  treasury.  This  amount 
was  probably  less  than  the  regular  price  of  such  slaves,  for  if  the 
amount  were  equal  to  the  full  value,  the  captor  would  have  been 
tempted  to  kill  the  cap'ive,  and  thus  avoid  the  trouble  of  keeping  him. 
Bassett,  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  North  Carolina,  p. 
73,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiv. 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  xiii,  pp.  204-205,  contains  a  letter 
of    President   Lowndes   of    South    Carolina   to    Governor   Caswell    of 
North    Carolina,   August  6,    1778,   concerning  the  adjustment   of  this 
matter.     As  late  as  1776  Cherokee  prisoners  of  war  were  sold  to  the 
highest  bidder  in   South  Carolina,  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  p.  223;  Basset,  op.  cit.,  p.  73,  in  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiv. 

2  Hoadly,   Records   of   the   Colony   or  Jurisdiction    of  New  Haven, 
from  May,  1653,  to  the  Union,  etc.,  p.  177. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [390 

so  definitely  expressed  during  the  Pequot  War,  was  con- 
tinually shown  from  that  time  until  King  Philip's  War. 
During  that  period,  1636-1675,  New  England  was  the 
scene  of  constant  intertribal  Indian  difficulties  between  the 
Mohegan  and  Narraganset  tribes.  Because  of  the  danger 
resulting  from  these  disturbances,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Ply- 
mouth, Connecticut  and  New  Haven  entered  into  confed- 
eration for  mutual  defense,  under  the  name  of  the  United 
Colonies  of  New  England.  The  articles  containing  the 
terms  of  the  intercolonial  agreement,  drawn  up  May  19, 
1643,  expressed  the  same  spirit  that  was  shown  during  the 
Pequot  War,  for  they  provided  that  "  the  whole  advantage 
of  the  war  .  .  .  ,  whether  it  be  in  lands,  goods  or  persons, 
shall  be  proportionally  divided  among  the  said  confed- 
erates 'V 

Continued  disturbances  led  the  commissioners  of  the 
United  Colonies  to  prepare  for  a  campaign  against  the 
Narraganset  Indians  in  1645.  Captain  John  Mason  was 
put  in  command  of  the  forces  raised.  In  keeping  with  the 
provision  of  the  articles  already  mentioned,  his  commis- 
sion, dated  July,  1645,  concluded  thus:  "what  booty  you 
take  or  prisoners,  whether  men,  women  or  children,  you 
may  send  to  Seabrook  fort,  to  be  kept  and  improved  for 
the  advantage  of  the  colonies  in  several  proportions  an- 
swering to  their  charges,  etc." 

During  King  Philip's  War  the  various  New  England 
governments,  with  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  in  the 
lead,  again  took  charge  of  the  disposal  of  the  captive  In- 
dians. Various  methods  were  adopted  to  convert  their 
Indian  captives  into  a  source  of  immediate  revenue.  One 
was  to  sell  them  outright  outside  of  the  colonies,  or,  on 
occasion,  within  the  colonies,  and  thus  replenish  the  ex- 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  ix,  p.  4.  *  Ibid.,  ix,  p.  35. 


39 1  ]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

chequer,  and,  so  far  as  might  be,  defray  the  expenses  of 
the  war.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Plymouth  Court  in  1676  to 
consider  the  disposal  of  more  than  a  hundred  captives,  the 
conclusion  was  reached,  "  upon  serious  and  deliberate  con- 
sideration and  agitation  "  concerning  them,  "  to  sell  the 
greater  number  into  servitude  "-1  A  little  later,  in  the 
same  year,  several  more  were  sold.2  In  each  case  the 
colonial  treasurer  was  ordered  to  effect  the  sale  for  the 
benefit  of  the  colony.  A  fiscal  report  of  Plymouth  for  the 
period  from  June  25,  1675,  to  September  23,  1676,  gives 
among  the  credits  the  following,  which  relates  to  the  sale 
of  the  one  hundred  and  eighty-eight  Indians  already  men- 
tioned :  "  By  the  following  accounts,  received  in,  or  as 
silver,  viz. :  captives,  for  188  prisoners  at  war  sold,  £397 

i3s.'" 

Records  of  similar  events  are  found  in  Massachusetts 
Bay.  On  November  4,  1676,  the  magistrates  and  depu- 
ties adopted  a  report  of  a  committee  of  the  general  court 
providing  for  the  selling  abroad  of  several  Indians.4 
Again,  on  September  16,  1676,  the  general  court  passed  an 
act  for  handing  over  the  disposal  of  certain  captured  In- 
dians to  the  council.  The  general  court  expressed  the 
opinion  that  such  of  them  as  had  shed  English  blood  should 
suffer  death.  The  inference  concerning  the  remainder  is 
that  they  were  to  be  sold.6 

A  second  method  of  paying  debts  by  the  use  of  captives 
was  to  direct  the  treasurer  of  the  colony  to  dispose  of  a 
certain  number  of  Indians,  and  turn  the  proceeds  to  the 
account  of  a  certain  individual  in  whose  debt  the  colony 
stood:  or  to  give  a  certain  number  of  Indians  to  such  a 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  173.  *  Ibid.,  v,  p.  174. 

*  Ibid.,  v,  p.  173;  ix,  p.  401.  *  Ibid.,  xi,  p.  242. 

5  Shurtleff,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  115. 


140  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [392 

person,  usually  with  the  stipulation  that  the  Indians  be  at 
once  sold  out  of  the  colony.  An  instance  of  the  first  kind 
occurred  in  Plymouth,  October  4,  1675,  when  the  general 
court  voted  with  "  reference  to  such  emergent  charges 
that  have  fallen  on  our  honored  governor,  the  summer  past, 
the  court  have  settled  and  conferred  on  him,  the  price  of 
ten  Indians  of  those  savages  lately  transported  out  of  the 
government  "-1  The  second  method  is  illustrated  by 
a  later  act  of  the  Plymouth  court,  August  24,  1676, 
when,  along  with  ten  Indians  ordered  by  the  court  to 
be  delivered  to  Captain  Benjamin  Church  and  Captain 
Anthony  Low  for  transportation  out  of  the  colony,  one 
Indian  was  ordered  "  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  Henry  Lilly, 
which  he  receives  in  full  satisfaction  for  his  attendance  at 
this  court ".  This  Indian,  like  the  others,  was  to  be  trans- 
ported.2 How  far  the  receipts  from  the  sale  of  captives 
went  toward  meeting  the  expenses  of  the  colony  is  not 
known.  It  must,  however,  have  been  but  a  short  way,  if 
one  is  to  judge  by  the  condition  of  the  colonial  exchequer 
at  the  time  and  the  expedients  adopted  by  the  colonial  gov- 
ernment to  obtain  money  to  defend  the  frontiers  and  meet 
the  other  expenses  of  war.3 

1  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iii,  p.  75. 

*  Hough,  op.  cit.,  pp.  188-189.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  none  of  the 
Indians  transported  were  allowed  to  return  to  the  colonies.  This 
same  court,  on  rumors  of  Indians  landing  near  the  coast  of  Rhode 
Island,  forbade  the  landing  of  any  Indian  on  the  shores  of  Rhode 
Island  or  Narragansett  Bay.  Hough,  op.  cit.,  p.  189. 

3  See  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  457,  for  expedients  adopted  by  Massa- 
chusetts to  obtain  money  to  defend  the  frontiers.  Yet  the  number 
killed  and  sold,  along  with  those  who  escaped,  practically  destroyed 
the  warring  Indians.  According  to  the  Massachusetts  Records  of 
1676-1677  a  day  was  set  apart  for  public  thanksgiving,  because, 
among  o'her  things  of  moment,  "there  now  scarce  remains  a  name 
or  family  of  them  (the  Indians)  but  are  either  slain,  captivated  or 
fled." 


3931       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE          I4I 

Still  a  third  way  was  to  grant  the  captured  Indians  di- 
rectly to  those  who  took  them  prisoners,  as  a  bounty  for 
their  capture.  The  Massachusetts  act  of  1695,  which,  along 
with  the  rewards  for  killing  Indians,1  conferred  on  the  sol- 
diers for  their  own  use  all  plunder  and  provisions  taken  from 
the  enemy,  appears  to  have  been  the  earliest  relinquishment 
by  the  provincial  government  of  its  sovereign  right  to 
prisoners  and  captives.2  In  the  later  laws  liberal  premiums 
were  continued  for  scalps,  and  volunteer  captors  of  Indians 
were,  by  the  law  of  1706,  granted  the  benefit  of  captives 
and  plunder.3  A  law  of  1703  provided  that  the  governor 
and  council,  in  the  absence  of  the  general  assembly,  pos- 
sessed the  power  to  pay  for  Indian  captives  under  ten  years 

1  Both  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts,  by  encouraging,  as  a  part  of  the 
war  policy,  the  capture  of  Indians  alive,  through  legalizing  such  cap- 
ture or  granting  a  specified  reward  for  each  captive,  unintentionally 
increased  the  number  of  Indian  captives  that  could  be  sold.  In  a 
declaration  issued  by  the  New  England  commissioners  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war,  it  was  declared  "  lawful  for  any  person,  whether 
English  or  Indian,  that  shall  find  any  Indians  traveling  or  skulking  in 
any  of  the  towns  or  roads  (within  specified  limits),  to  command  them 
under  their  guard  and  examination,  or  to  kill  them  as  they  may  or 
can."  To  this  direction  was  added  :  "The  council  hereby  declaring,  that 
it  will  be  most  acceptable  to  them  that  none  be  killed  or  wounded  that 
are  willing  to  surrender  themselves  into  custody."  Halkett,  Historical 
Notes  respecting  the  Indians  of  North  America,  p.  135. 

In  the  eastern  campaign  Massachusetts  offered  twenty  shillings 
bounty  for  every  Indian  scalp,  and  forty  shillings  for  every  prisoner. 
The  individual  towns  sometimes  took  similar  action.  For  instance,  the 
people  of  Monhegan  publicly  offered  a  bounty  of  £5  for  every  Indian 
that  should  be  brought  in.  In  1694,  Massachusetts  decreed  that  vol- 
unteers were  to  have  for  every  Indian,  great  or  small,  which  they 
should  kill  or  bring  in  prisoner,  £50,  as  well  as  all  plunder.  Soldiers 
under  pay  were  to  receive,  over  and  above  pay,  £10.  In  1695,  £25  was 
decreed  as  the  reward  for  any  Indian  woman  or  young  person  under 
fourteen  years  of  age.  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  pp.  176,  211,  292. 

1  Historical  Magazine,  x,  p.  188. 

3  Douglas,  A  Summary,  Historical  and  Political,  etc.,  i,  p.  557. 


I42  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [394 

old  the  sum  of  £3,  and  stated  that  they  could  use  the  In- 
dians thus  obtained,  either  for  the  redemption  of  English 
captives  among  the  Indians,  or  else  they  could  sell  them 
across  the  sea.1  Another  law  of  the  same  year  granted  the 
regular  forces  the  benefit  of  the  sale  of  all  Indian  pris- 
oners under  the  age  of  ten  years  taken  by  them  to  be  trans- 
ported out  of  the  country,  the  profits  of  the  sale  to  be  shared 
among  the  officers  and  men  of  the  company  engaged,  pro- 
portionally to  their  wages.  All  volunteers  were,  likewise, 
to  have  the  benefit  of  all  Indian  prisoners  under  the  age  of 
ten  years  by  them  taken.2  By  such  legal  action  Massa- 
chusetts was  in  reality  putting  a  premium  on  slave  catching. 
The  colonial  governments  not  only  sold  the  Indian  cap- 
tives themselves,  but  sometimes  authorized  their  military 
commanders  so  to  do.  On  January  15,  1676,  the  governor 
of  Massachusetts  issued  instructions  to  Captain  Benjamin 
Church  to  go  against  the  Indians,  and  to  distribute  among 
his  men  the  plunder  and  captives  according  to  such  agree- 
ment as  captain  and  company  might  make.  The  instruc- 
tions read :  "  And  it  shall  be  lawful,  and  is  hereby  war- 
ranted, for  him  to  make  sale  of  such  prisoners  as  their 
perpetual  slaves ;  or  otherwise  to  retain  them,  as  they  think 
meet  (they  being  such  as  the  law  allows  to  be  kept)".3  On 
August  28,  1676,  also,  the  governor  of  Plymouth  wrote 
to  the  governor  of  Rhode  Island  that  Captain  Church  had 
been  chosen  and  authorized  by  Plymouth  "  to  demand  and 
receive  of  the  governor  of  Rhode  Island  "  all  the  captive 
Indians,  and  to  guard  and  conduct  them  to  Plymouth,  or  to 
sell  and  dispose  of  them,  as  he  chose,  to  the  "  inhabitants  or 

1  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii,  p.  45. 

1  Ibid.,  i,  530. 

1  Church,  op.  cit.,  Dexter  edition,  i,  p.  189.  For  the  successful  ex- 
pedition of  Church  in  wh'ch  he  captured  126  Indians,  see  Sylvester, 
Indian  Wars  of  New  England,  ii,  p.  326. 


395]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE         143 

others  for  terms  of  life,  or  for  shorter  times,  as  there  may 
be  reasons  'V 

No  exception  to  this  custom  of  enslavement  was  made  in 
the  case  of  the  Praying  Indians.  During  the  course  of  the 
war  several  of  these  Indians,  "  through  the  harsh  dealings 
of  the  English  ",  and  because  of  neglect  to  provide  them 
with  "  sufficient  shelter,  protection  and  encouragement  ", 
joined  the  warring  Indians.2  Such  of  these  Indians  as 
were  taken  in  arms  were  declared  by  the  Massachusetts 
general  court  to  be  in  rebellion,  and  were  tried  and  sen- 
tenced, some  to  be  killed,  but  the  most  of  them  to  be  trans- 
ported and  sold  as  slaves.3 

Captives  were  also  retained  as  slaves  in  the  colony,  es- 
pecially the  women  and  children.  For  instance,  in  1675, 
in  return  for  the  privilege  granted  by  Mr.  Shrimpton  of 
Noddle's  Island  to  quarter  one  hundred  Indians  upon  that 
island  free  of  charge,  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts 
ordered  five  Christian  Indian  prisoners  to  be  delivered  to 

1  This  last  phrase  related  to  a  decree  of  the  Plymouth  Council  of 
War,  in  turn  confirmed  by  the  Court,  July  23,  1676.  Hough,  op.  cit., 
pp.  187-189.  The  bill  of  sale  of  one  of  the  Indian  women  to  Adam 
Right  of  Duxbury  bears  the  signature  of  Church.  Weeden,  Early 
Rhode  Island,  a  Social  History  of  the  People,  p.  178. 

3  Gookin,  op.  cit.,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society  Collections,  ii, 
1836,  p.  449.  One  of  the  arguments  used  by  the  warring  Indians  to 
persuade  the  Praying  Indians  to  join  with  them,  was  that  the  English 
proposed  to  destroy  all  the  Praying  Indians,  or  sell  them  out  of  the 
country  as  slaves.  Ibid.,  pp.  462,  476.  The  feeling  against  the  Pray'ng 
Indians  was  so  strong  that  a  council  in  Boston,  August  30,  1675,  dis- 
banded them,  and  distributed  them  among  five  of  their  own  villages. 
Gookin,  op.  cit.,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society  Collections,  ii,  1836, 
p.  450.  Most  of  the  Indians  were  sent  to  Deer  Island.  Some  of  them 
were  transported  before  harvests  were  gathered,  and  the  government 
neglected  to  provide  them  with  sufficient  food,  clothes  and  shelter. 
Ibid.,  ii,  1836,  p.  433  et  seq. 

8  Belknap,  The  History  of  New  Hampshire,  i,  p.  245. 


I44  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [396 

him  to  be  employed  on  Noddle's  Island,  "  he  returning 
them  to  the  order  of  the  council  'V 

It  is  very  probable,  as  Gookin  asserts,  that  instances  are 
not  lacking  in  which  some  of  the  Praying  Indians  were  sold 
as  slaves  under  accusations  which  were  false.2  Such  hap- 
pened also  in  the  case  of  other  Indians.  Their  promises 
were  not  considered  sincere  by  the  colonial  authorities,  for 
a  result  of  the  war  was  an  intense  hatred  and  suspicion  of 
all  Indians.3  The  Praying  Indians  were  sufficiently  numer- 
ous to  be  a  dangerous  factor,  and  the  colonial  authorities 
intended  to  give  them  no  chance  to  gain  the  advantage.4 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  number  of  enslaved  In- 
dian captives  retained  in  Massachusetts,  that  number  was 
sufficiently  large  to  cause  some  uneasiness  on  the  part  of 
both  authorities  and  people.  On  July  22,  1676,  the  general 
court  of  Plymouth  confirmed  an  act  of  the  council  of  war 
declaring  that,  because  of  the  danger  to  the  peace  and 
safety  of  the  colony  incurred  by  having  Indian  captives  re- 

1  Sumner,  A  History  of  East  Boston,  etc.,  p.  197. 

1  Gookin,  op.  cit.,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society  Collections,  1836, 
ii,  P.  449- 

8  Some  of  the  Praying  Indians  fought  on  the  English  side.  It  was 
reported  among  the  Indians  that  these  Christian  Indians  never  shot  at 
their  Indian  opponents,  but  into  the  tops  of  trees,  and  that  they  sold 
to  Phipp's  agents  the  ammunition  provided  them.  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society  Collections,  series  5,  i,  p.  106. 

4  It  is  estimated  that  there  were  probably  between  30,000  and  40,000 
white  inhabitants  in  the  United  Colonies  at  the  time  of  King  Philip's 
War,  and  that  of  these,  6,000  to  8,000  were  able  to  bear  arms.  Mather, 
A  Brief  History  of  the  War  with  the  Indians  of  New  England,  p.  xxix. 
No  estimate  of  the  number  of  Praying  Indians  at  the  time  of  the  war 
seems  available.  Palfrey,  A  Compendious  History  of  New  England 
from  the  Discovery  by  Europeans,  etc.,  ii,  p.  124,  states  their  number, 
when  at  the  highest,  as  4,000.  In  1685,  Mr.  Hinckley,  governor  of 
Plymouth,  estimated  them  at  1,439,  not  counting  children  under  twelve 
years  of  age.  Hutchinson,  The  History  of  the  Colony  of  Massachu- 
setts, i,  p.  349. 


397]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE         145 

siding  there,  no  male  captive  above  the  age  of  fourteen 
years  of  age  should  reside  in  the  colony;  and  that,  if  any 
such  captive  above  that  age  was  then  resident  in  the  colony, 
he  was  to  be  disposed  of  out  of  the  colony  before  October 
15,  1676,  or  be  forfeited  to  the  government.1  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  act  was  rigorously  enforced  during  its  brief 
existence.  Exceptions  to  the  law  were  doubtless  made  by 
the  court  from  time  to  time.2 

Another  act  of  similar  tenor  was  passed  March  29,  1677, 
when  the  Massachusetts  council  in  an  order,  the  preamble 
of  which  shows  much  alarm  on  the  part  of  the  people,  de- 
creed that  no  one  within  the  colony  should  thereafter  buy 
or  keep,  more  than  ten  days  after  the  publication  of  the 
council's  decree,  any  Indian  men  or  women  already  bought, 
above  the  age  of  twelve  years,  without  allowance  from 
authority.  A  fine  of  £5,  and  the  forfeit  of  the  Indian  or 
Indians  concerned  were  fixed  as  a  penalty  for  violation  of 
the  law.3  Toward  the  end  of  the  year  Plymouth  still 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  pp.  173-174;  xii,  p.  242;  Baylies, 
op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iii,  p.  188. 

1  Church,  op.  cit.,  Dexter  edition,  i,  p.  182,  mentions  the  sale  of  an 
old  Indian  named  "  Conscience  "  to  a  native  of  Swanzey.  Perhaps  an 
exception  was  made  in  the  case  of  this  Indian,  because  of  age.  An- 
other exception  appears  to  have  been  made  by  the  Plymouth  Court, 
September  I,  1676,  when  Sergeant  Rogers  was  allowed  to  keep  his 
Indian  man  at  his  own  house,  provided  he  should  produce  the  said 
Indian  on  demand  of  the  court.  Hough,  op.  cit.,  p.  186.  Still  another 
exception  was  made  by  the  Plymouth  Court  at  the  same  session  grant- 
ing Church  the  right  to  "  some  five  or  six  Indians,"  who,  if  their  be- 
havior was  satisfactory,  might  remain  in  the  colony  and  not  be  sold 
to  foreign  parts  unless  any  of  them  should  be  proved  to  have  mur- 
dered any  of  the  English.  One  Indian  named  "  Grossman "  was 
especially  mentioned,  as  he  had  been  accused  of  murdering  Mr.  Heze- 
kiah  Willet.  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  xi,  p.  242;  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii, 
pt.  iii,  p.  188. 

3  Pamphlet  published  in  Cambridge  in  1677,  now  in  possession  of 
the  Boston  Athenaeum.  The  full  text  is  as  follows: 

"At  a  court  held  at  Boston  in  New  England,  the  29th  of  March, 


I46  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [398 

further  extended  governmental  supervision  of  captives  by 
decreeing,  March  5,  1678,  that  no  one  was  to  buy  the  chil- 
dren of  the  captive  Indians  taken  during  the  late  war, 
"  without  special  leave,  liking  and  approbation  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  jurisdiction  "-1 

The  seizure  of  Indians  by  authority  of  the  colonial  gov- 
ernments, and  their  subsequent  sale,  were  not  always  above 
suspicion.  At  the  time  of  the  Narraganset  troubles,  in 
1646,  Plymouth  gave  legal  sanction  for  the  seizure  of 
peaceable  and  unsuspecting  Indians  whose  tribes  were  at 
peace  with  the  English.2  A  second  instance  of  the  same 
character  occurred  during  King  Philip's  War  shortly  after 
the  destruction  of  Dartmouth  in  1675.  The  Dartmouth 
Indians  had  not  been  concerned  in  the  burning  of  the  town, 
so  the  whites  entered  into  negotiations  of  peace  and  friend- 
ship with  them,  and  the  captains  of  the  resident  militia  and 
the  Plymouth  forces  sent  thither  promised  them  protection. 
But  through  other  influences  they  were  conducted  to  Ply- 
mouth, and,  by  order  of  the  council,  August  4,  1675,  they 
were  sold  and  "transported  out  of  the  Country,  being  about 
Eight-score  Persons  ".3  On  September  2,  1675,  the  council 

1677.  The  council  being  informed  that  certain  strange  Indians,  who 
have  been  in  Hostility  against  us,  or  have  lived  amongst  such,  are 
brought  into  this  Jurisdiction,  and  bought  by  several  persons,  which 
causeth  much  trouble  and  fear  to  the  Inhabitants  where  they  reside, 
and  may  be  of  dangerous  consequence,  not  only  to  the  Towns  where 
they  live,  but  to  the  whole  Jurisdiction,  if  not  timely  prevented: 

"  It  is  therefore  Ordered  that  what  person  soever  within  this  Juris- 
diction shall  hereafter  buy  or  keep  above  ten  days  after  the  publica- 
tion hereof,  any  such  Indian,  man  or  woman  already  bought,  above 
the  age  of  twelve  years,  wi  hout  allowance  from  authority,  shall  be- 
sides the  forfeit  of  such  Indian  or  Indians,  pay  the  fine  of  five  pounds 
to  the  Treasurer  of  the  Country,  and  the  Constables  of  the  several 
towns  are  ordered  forthwith  to  publish  this  Order  in  their  Precincts. 
By  the  Council,  Edward  Rawson,  Seer." 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  253.  2  Ibid.,  ix,  p.  71. 

1  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  259;  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  173. 
This  action  was  opposed  by  Church,  but  without  result. 


399]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

took  similar  action  in  the  case  of  "  a  parcel  of  Indians 
lately  come  into  Sandwich,  in  a  submissive  way  to  this  col- 
ony ".  They  were  adjudged  to  be  "  in  the  same  condition 
of  rebellion  ",  and  were  condemned,  fifty-seven  in  number, 
to  perpetual  servitude.1 

A  fourth,  and  far  more  notable  instance  of  bad  faith  on 
the  part  of  the  English,  occurred  at  Cocheco  (Dover,  New 
Hampshire)  during  the  Indian  difficulties  in  that  section, 
contemporaneous  with  and  following  King  Philip's  War. 
Major  Waldron  was  in  command  of  the  local  garrison, 
and  had  gathered  about  him  four  hundred  Indians,  about 
two  hundred  of  whom  were  refugees  who  had  fled  there 
for  protection  after  the  death  of  King  Philip,  which  Wal- 
dron had  promised  them.  The  depredations  of  the  An- 
droscoggin  Indians  at  Casco  and  the  devastation  of  the 
settlements  on  the  Kennebec  caused  the  Massachusetts  gov- 
ernment to  send  a  military  force  into  that  locality,  with 
orders  to  seize  all  southern  Indians  wherever  they  could 
find  them.  In  obedience  to  this  order  the  leaders  of  the 
Massachusetts  troops  wished  to  seize  the  Indians  at  once, 
but  Waldron  hesitated  to  break  his  promise  and  proposed 
a  stratagem  to  avoid  disastrous  results.  His  suggestion 
was  followed,  and  all  the  Indians  were  disarmed  and  made 
prisoners,  September  7,  1676.  The  "  strange  Indians ", 
or  those  who  had  come  from  the  south,  two  hundred  in 
number,  were  retained  and  sent  to  Boston.  Seven  or  eight 
who  were  convicted  of  having  shed  English  blood  were 
condemned  to  death;  the  rest  were  sold  into  slavery  in 
foreign  parts.2 

1  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  259;  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  p.  174. 
Church,  op.  cit.,  Dexter  edition,  i,  p.  46. 

2  Belknap,   The  History  of  New  Hampshire,  i,  pp.   143,  245 ;   New 
Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  i,  p.  357;  Williamson,  The  History  of 
the  State  of  Maine,  i,  p.  539;  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  339-340;  Shurt- 


148  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [400 

Toward  the  close  of  the  war  orders  were  given  by  cer- 
tain of  the  New  England  colonies  to  the  constables  to  seize 
all  Indians  remaining  in  the  colonies  after  a  specific  date. 
All  who  had  been  concerned  in  the  death  of  a  colonist  or 
the  destruction  of  property  were  to  be  summarily  executed. 
Those  who  remained  friendly  or  had  finally  assisted  the 
English,  were  allowed  to  retain  their  lands  and  continue 
their  regular  life.  The  others  were  to  be  sold  by  the  treas- 
urers of  the  various  colonies  for  the  benefit  of  their  re- 
spective governments.1 

The  locating  of  those  Indians  that  remained  after  the 
war,  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining  order,  resulted, 
1677,  in  the  government  of  Massachusetts  settling  the 
groups  of  Indians,  Praying  as  well  as  unconverted,  in  var- 
ious localities,  and  the  distribution  of  some  to  "  remain  as 
servants  in  English  families  "  where  they  were  to  be  taught 
and  instructed  in  the  Christian  religion.  Both  the  captive 
male  Indians  and  their  families  were  held  as  slaves.  Massa- 
chusetts and  Plymouth  limited  the  time  of  servitude  of  the 
children  of  "  friendly  Indians  ",  or  those  who  surrendered 
and  assisted  the  English,  to  the  time  when  they  should  be- 

leff,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  115.  Hubbard  and  Mather  barely  mention  this  affair. 
Hubbard,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  28;  Mather,  Magnolia,  bk.  7,  ch.  6.  Wil- 
liamson states  that  the  propriety  of  the  event  was  a  "  subject  which 
divided  the  whole  community;  some  applauded,  some  doubted,  some 
censured,  but  the  government  approved." 

1  Ellis  and  Morris,  King  Philip's  War,  p.  287;  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii, 
pt.  iii,  p.  190.  In  at  least  one  instance,  provision  against  their  being 
sold  as  slaves  was  made  by  the  Indians  in  the  terms  of  their  surren- 
der. When  the  squaw-sachem,  Awanthonks,  deserted  the  cause  of 
Philip  and  allied  herself  with  the  English,  she  obtained  a  promise 
from  the  Plymouth  government  "  that  the  life  of  every  man,  woman 
and  child  shall  be  spared,  and  none  shall  ever  be  sold  as  slaves,  or 
transported  from  their  native  soil."  'Hough,  op.  cit.,  p.  20;  Drake,  The 
Book  of  the  Indians,  ninth  edition,  p.  252;  Freeman,  Civilisation  and 
Barbarism,  p.  129. 


4oi  ]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

come  twenty- four  years  of  age.1  The  time  of  service  of  the 
children  of  the  warring  Indians  was  not  so  limited. 

Since  King  Philip's  War  was  never  carried  into  Con- 
necticut territory,  the  problem  of  disposing  of  Indian 
captives  never  assumed  the  same  importance  there  as 
in  Massachusetts,  and  the  Connecticut  government  did 
not  export  its  captive  Indians.  On  October  23,  1676, 
as  a  measure  intended  to  induce  the  surrender  of  the 
warring  tribes  and  so  hasten  the  conclusion  of  the 
war,  the  general  court  ordered  that  all  Indians  who 
surrendered  before  January  i,  1677,  should  not  be 
sold  out  of  the  country  as  slaves.  The  measure,  how- 
ever, permitted  their  use  as  temporary  slaves  in  the 
colony.  They  were  to  receive  good  usage  in  the  service 
of  those  to  whom  the  council  might  dispose  of  them,  and 
after  ten  years,  all  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  on  cer- 
tificate of  good  behavior  from  their  masters  regarding 
their  good  service  during  that  period,  were  to  have  their 
liberty  and  be  allowed  to  dwell  in  the  colony  and  work  for 
themselves,  provided  they  observed  English  law.  If  the 
master  should  refuse  such  certificate,  then  the  Indian  could 
apply  to  the  authorities  and  have  his  case  decided.  The 
council  was  given  power  to  lengthen  the  term  of  servitude 
if  it  should  see  cause,  but  could  not  shorten  it.  All  In- 
dians under  sixteen  years  of  age  were  to  serve  until  twenty- 
six  years  of  age.2 

At  a  meeting,  November  24,  1676,  the  Connecticut  coun- 
cil decided  upon  its  method  of  procedure.  A  committee 
was  appointed  to  meet  at  Norwich  on  the  second  Wednes- 
day of  the  following  December  to  "  dispose  and  settle  all 

1  Shurtleff,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  136;  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  v,  pp.  207, 
223. 

2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,   ii,    1665-1677,   pp.  297-298.     Indians 
convicted  of  having  murdered  any  of  the  English  were  to  be  put  to 
death,  as  in  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth. 


I50  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [402 

surrenders  according  to  order  ".  All  Indians  expecting  to 
have  the  benefit  of  the  declaration  must  then  and  there  ap- 
pear. After  that  time  all  those  who  had  shown  hostility 
to  the  English  were  excluded  from  the  privilege  and 
were  to  be  dealt  with  as  enemies,  as  were  also  those  who 
should  hide  or  harbor  them.  The  notice  of  the  council's 
action  was  to  be  sent  among  the  various  Indians  of  the 
colony.  The  instructions  of  the  committee  appointed  di- 
rected them,  among  other  things,  to  take  all  young  and 
single  persons  of  all  sorts  to  put  into  English  families  to 
be  apprentices  for  ten  years.  After  that  they  were  to  be 
returned  to  their  parents  on  proof  of  their  own  and  their 
parents'  fidelity.  Otherwise  they  were  to  be  sold  into  slav- 
ery. The  general  court  appointed  certain  persons  in  each 
county  to  receive  and  distribute  these  Indian  children  pro- 
portionally, and  to  see  that  they  were  sold  to  good  families. 
Those  counties  which  had  already  had  some  share  of  the 
surrendered  Indians  and  captives  or  which  had  too  many 
Indians  already,  were  not  to  receive  as  many  as  the  other 
counties.1 

The  Rhode  Island  authorities  also  limited  the  bondage  of 
Indians  to  a  period  of  years.  On  May  18,  1652,  the  colony 
passed  a  law  "  that  no  black  mankind  or  white  "  should  be 
"  forced  by  covenant,  bond  or  otherwise,  to  serve  any  man 
or  his  assignees  longer  than  ten  years,  or  until  they  became 
twenty-four  years  of  age,  if  they  be  taken  in  under  four- 
teen, from  the  time  of  their  coming  within  the  limits  of  the 
colony;  and  at  the  end  of  the  term  of  ten  years,  they  were 
to  be  set  free,  "  as  the  manner  is  with  English  servants  " 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  ii,    1665-1677,   pp.  481-482.     At  this 
meeting  the  council  granted  liberty  to  ten  Indians  who  had  been  cap- 
tured in  a  swamp  where  they  had  hidden. 

2  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations 
in  New  England,  i,  p.  243 ;  Richman,  Rhode  Island,  its  Making  and  its 
Meaning"  ii,  p.  192. 


403]       PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE          i$i 

Either  the  framers  of  the  law  intended  that  Indians  be  in- 
cluded under  the  terms  "  black  mankind  or  white  ",  or  else 
the  subject  of  Indian  slavery  had  not  yet  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  the  law  makers  at  this  time.  Probably  the  latter 
is  the  true  explanation  of  the  omission  of  the  term  "  In- 
dian "  from  the  act,  though  at  a  later  time  the  same  re- 
striction of  service  was  applied  to  Indians  without  legisla- 
tion. 

On  March  13,  1676,  the  general  assembly  convened  at 
Newport  and  discussed  the  Indian  situation.  An  order 
was  given  that  "  no  Indian  in  this  colony  shall  be  a  slave  ", 
save  only  for  debts,  covenant,  etc.,  "  as  if  they  had  been 
countrymen  not  at  war  ".*  But  Rhode  Island  did  not  avail 
itself  of  every  opportunity  to  retain  captive  Indians.  On 
one  occasion  the  assembly  voted,  June  30,  1676,  to  send 
back  to  Plymouth  a  number  of  Indians  whom  Roger 
Williams  had  sent  there,  because  they  believed  the  Indians 
rightly  belonged  to  the  northern  colony.2  Again,  on  August 
23,  1676,  the  government  held  a  court  martial  for  the 
trial  of  some  Indians  whom  the  Rhode  Island  troops  had 
captured.  Several  of  these  Indians  were  sentenced  to  death 
for  crimes  against  the  English.  Others  were  freed.  None 
was  retained  in  the  colony.3 

The  assembly  made  an  earnest  effort  to  prevent  the  in- 
discriminate and  unfair  sale  of  Indians  not  taking  part  in 
the  war,  by  forbidding  during  its  session  in  August,  1676, 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Planta- 
tions, u,  p.  534. 

1  "  Because  it  is  said  they  were  left  as  hostages  to  the  English  force 
of  the  United  Colonies."  Hough,  op.  cit.,  p.  186. 

1  Action  was  taken  in  accordance  with  the  powers  granted  in  the 
charter  "  to  exercise  the  law  martial  in  such  cases  as  occasions  shall 
necessarily  require,  and  upon  just  cause,  to  invade  and  destroy  the 
native  Indians  and  other  enemies  of  the  said  colony."  Hough,  op.  cit., 
p.  173  et  seq. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [404 

that  any  Indians  be  brought  into  the  colony  without  per- 
mission of  the  governor  and  two  assistants,  under  penalty 
of  a  fine  of  £5  and  the  forfeit  of  such  Indian  or  Indians. 
The  sum  of  the  fine  and  the  forfeited  Indians  were  "  to 
return  to  the  treasurer  of  each  town  ".  All  persons  were 
declared  to  be  entitled  to  half  the  produce  of  the  Indians 
whom  they  might  legally  bring  to  Newport.  The  other 
half  was  to  go  to  the  treasury.  If  such  an  amount  was  not 
paid  in,  the  said  Indians  were  to  be  forfeited  to  the  treas- 
urer of  the  colony.  It  was  also  forbidden  to  carry  any 
Indian  away  from  the  colony  without  a  permit  from  the 
governor,  deputy-governor  or  two  magistrates,  upon  pen- 
alty of  the  forfeiture  of  £5.  All  acts,  orders,  commis- 
sions, verbal  orders,  etc.,  which  had  been  issued  by  town 
councils,  councils  of  war,  private  orders  of  officers  and 
"  other  ministers  of  justice ",  which  related  to  Indians, 
were  declared  legal  by  the  assembly.1 

Such  action  as  that  referred  to  in  this  measure  was  taken 
at  a  town  meeting  in  Portsmouth,  March  8,  1675.  The 
meeting,  fearing  that  the  holding  of  Indian  slaves  might 
prove  "  prejudicial  ",  ordered  that  all  persons  of  the  town 
having  any  Indian  slave  of  either  sex  should  be  given  but 
one  month  to  sell  and  send  such  out  of  the  town,  and  that 
no  inhabitant  after  that  time  should  buy  or  keep  an  Indian 
slave  under  penalty  of  £5  fine  for  each  month  thus  holding 
such  a  slave,  the  amount  of  the  fine  to  be  paid  to  the  town 
treasurer.2 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Planta- 
tions, ii,  pp.  549-551. 

1  Early  Records  of  the  Town  of  Portsmouth,  p.  188.  Rhode  Island 
was  accustomed  to  sell  both  whites  and  Indians  into  temporary  servi- 
tude as  punishment  for  crime.  The  Indians  here  mentioned  were 
probably  examples  of  such  cases.  See  Rhode  Island  Tracts,  No.  18, 
p.  131.  The  towns  appears  to  have  reversed  its  policy  later.  See 
Weeden,  Early  Rhode  Island,  etc.,  p.  178. 


405]      PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  WARFARE 

It  was  politic  for  the  colonial  governments  to  oppose  the  enslave- 
ment of  Indians  who  were  friendly  to  the  English  or  in  alliance  with 
them.  Two  such  instances  are  recorded  in  connection  with  North 
Carolina.  In  1713,  at  the  request  of  the  governor  of  New  York,  the 
Seneca  Indians  sent  an  Indian  to  the  Tuscarora  to  caution  them 
against  going  to  war  with  the  English.  The  South  Carolina  Indians 
captured  this  Indian  and  held  him  as  a  slave.  The  council  decided 
to  buy  him  and  send  him  back  to  his  own  nation.  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  ii,  pp.  1-2.  In  the  same  year  the  council  ordered 
that  a  colonist  who  had  sold  a  friendly  Indian  as  a  slave  should  be 
held  for  trial.  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  55. 

During  the  intercolonial  wars  the  French  Indians  were  accustomed 
to  take  both  their  white  and  red  captives  to  Canada,  where  the  latter 
became  slaves.  As  a  part  of  their  protective,  diplomatic  and  military 
policy,  the  English  sought  to  regain  the  freedom  of  these  Indians, 
and  thus  retain  the  friendship  of  the  Six  Nations.  In  1688,  Governor 
Dongan  demanded  of  the  French  agents  that  certain  New  York  In- 
dians who  had  been  sent  from  Canada  to  France,  be  returned  to  the 
English  consul  at  Paris  or  to  the  authorities  in  London,  so  that  they 
might  be  brought  home  and  be  given  their  freedom.  New  York  Colo- 
nial Documents,  iii,  p.  526.  The  French  authorities  agreed,  and  the 
Indians  were  brought  back.  Ibid.,  iii,  pp.  621,  732,  733.  In  1748,  Gov- 
ernor Shirley  sought  to  obtain  the  freedom  of  a  Rhode  Island  Indian 
who  had  been  sold  as  a  slave  in  Canada,  and  on  another  occasion  sent 
fourteen  French  prisoners  to  South  Carolina  to  redeem  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Six  Nations  who  were  held  there.  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  448. 
Throughout  the  French  and  Indian  struggle  the  governors  of  New 
York  insisted  that  the  members  of  the  Six  Nations,  when  captured  in 
war,  should  be  treated  exactly  as  other  English  subjects,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  they  should  not  be  enslaved. 


CHAPTER  VI 
PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING 

THE  process  of  obtaining  Indians  by  kidnapping  was 
common  to  the  early  English  explorers  in  America,  as  well 
as  to  those  of  Spain  and  France.  In  1498,  the  expedition 
of  Sebastian  Cabot  brought  back  to  England  three  natives 
from  the  New  World.1  Lord  Bacon  states  that  two  of  the 
Indians  "  were  seen  two  years  afterward,  dressed  like 
Englishmen,  and  not  to  be  distinguished  from  them  ".a 
The  Cabots  had  set  off,  promising  to  bring  home  heavy 
cargoes  of  spices  and  oriental  gems.  They  returned  with 
empty  ships  and  with  nothing  to  relate  concerning  the 
sought-for  land  of  Cathay.  Their  expedition  had  not 
reached  its  desired  destination,  but  some  of  the  natives 
would  serve  as  proof  of  another  land  discovered,  and 
would,  perhaps,  provoke  sufficient  interest  to  assure  the 
fitting  out  of  a  second  expedition.8  These  Indians  were 
not  destined  for  the  slave  markets,  and  were  probably  kept 
as  curiosities. 

1  Hakluyt  Society  Publications,  vii,  p.  23 ;  Beazley,  John  and  Sebastian 
Cabot,  p.  118. 

2  Beazley,  op.  cit.,  p.  118. 

1  Historians  differ  regarding  the  place  where  these  Indians  were 
captured.  J.  G.  Kohl,  in  A  History  of  the  Discovery  of  the  East 
Coast  of  North  America,  reprinted  in  Maine  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, series  2,  i,  p.  142,  expresses  the  opinion  that  Cabot  probably 
obtained  them  on  some  shore  south  of  New  York  harbor.  James  S. 
Buckingham,  in  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  etc,  pp.  168,  337;  and  Samuel 
G.  Drake,  in  The  History  and  Antiquities  of  Boston,  i,  p.  I,  regard 
Newfoundland  as  the  probable  home  of  the  savages. 

IS4  [406 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING 


155 


England  still  hoped  to  find  the  northwest  passage  to  the 
Orient.  In  1576,  Frobisher  made  another  attempt  in  that 
direction.  He  desired  to  take  away  some  token  as  proof 
of  his  having  been  in  the  New  World,  and,  as  it  was  sup- 
posed the  Indians  had  destroyed  or  stolen  three  of  his  men 
who  were  lost,  he  decided  to  take  some  savages  captive  by 
luring  them  to  trade.  In  this  way  one  was  captured,  but 
died  on  reaching  England.1  A  similar  instance  occurred 
on  the  second  voyage  in  1577.  Frobisher  planned  to  seize 
several  Indians,  bestow  gifts  upon  them,  and  send  them 
to  their  own  people,  hoping  thus  to  win  the  friendship  of 
the  natives,  after  keeping  one  of  them  as  interpreter.  An 
attempt  was  made  to  seize  two,  but  one  escaped.  As  a 
companion  for  this  man,  an  Indian  woman  was  afterward 
captured.  Frobisher  attempted  to  trade  these  captives  for 
some  lost  Englishmen,  but  was  unsuccessful  ;  2  so  it  is 
probable  that  they  were  carried  to  England.  The  relation 
of  the  third  voyage,  1578,  mentions  a  similar  man  and 
woman,  but  the  narrator  does  not  state  whether  these  were 
the  same  two  taken  on  the  second  voyage,  carried  to  Eng- 
land, and  brought  back  to  America  on  the  third  voyage,  or 
two  others  taken  on  the  third  voyage.  These  Indians  pro- 
voked much  curiosity  and  comment  in  England,  and  pic- 
tures of  them  were  made  for  the  queen  and  others.3 

The  search  for  the  northwest  passage  was  continued  by 
Captain  George  Weymouth  in  1605,  under  the  patronage 
of  Lord  Popham  and  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges.  Weymouth 
reached  the  coast  of  America  at  the  mouth  of  the  present 
Penobscot  River  in  Maine.  By  making  presents  to  the  In- 
dians and  by  treating  them  kindly,  he  induced  five  of  them 
to  come  on  board  his  ship.  These  five  Indians  were  kid- 

1  Best,  Frobisher's  First  Voyage,  in  Voyages  of  the  Elizabethan  Sea- 
men to  America,  Payne's  edition,  pp.  65,  66. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  76-88.  3  Ibid.,  p.  136. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [408 

napped  and  carried  to  England,  along  with  their  canoes 
and  the  personal  belongings  which  they  had  with  them  at 
the  time  of  capture.  There  appears  to  have  been  no  feeling 
of  opposition  shown  to  such  an  act.  Three  of  them  were 
presented  by  Weymouth  to  Gorges,  and  two  to  Pop- 
ham.1  Gorges  declared  that  "  this  accident  must  be 
acknowledged  the  means  under  God  of  putting  on  foot  and 
giving  life  to  all  our  plantations  ".2  Weymouth  did  not 
propose  to  obtain  financial  profit  by  the  sale  of  these  In- 
dians any  more  than  did  his  predecessors,  Cabot  and  Fro- 
bisher.  His  immediate  purpose  was  probably  to  please  his 
patrons  by  a  curious  gift,  and  doubtless  he  shared  the  pur- 
pose of  Gorges  and  Popham  of  learning  from  them  the  re- 
sources of  their  native  land,  and  by  instructing  them,  to 
have  them  fitted  to  act  as  intelligent  guides  and  interpreters 
in  some  future  expedition.  His  instructions  required  that 
he  treat  the  Indians  kindly  so  that  they  might  prove 
friendly  to  future  settlements.3  The  treatment  of  the  cap- 
tives in  England  was  evidently  kind.  Gorges  kept  his  In- 
dians in  his  family  three  years  and  obtained  from  them 
the  knowledge  he  desired.  The  Indians  were  shown  to  the 
curious,  perhaps  for  money,  and  it  has  been  held  that  one, 
after  death,  was  exhibited  for  an  admission  price.4 

1  Mather,  Magnolia  Christi  Americana,  etc.,  first  American  edition, 
(1820),  i,  p.  52;    Prince,  A   Chronological  History  of  New  England 
in   the  Form  of  Annals,  edition  of   1887,  ii,  p.  26;   Rosier,  A    True 
Relation  of  the  most  prosperous  Voyage  made  this  present  year,  etc., 
in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  viii,  p.  145. 

2  Gorges,  A  True  Relation  of  the  late  Battell  fought  in  New  England, 
etc.,  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  vi,  p.  51 ; 
Williamson,   The  History  of  the  State  of  Maine  from  its  first  Dis- 
covery, i,  p.  207;  Young,  Chronicles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  New 
England,  etc.,  second  edition,  p.  190. 

3  Stith,  History  of  Virginia,  bk.  i,  pp.  33,  34;  Drake,  The  Old  Indian 
Chronicle,  edition  of  1867,  pp.  10-13. 

4  Shakespeare's  jeering  remark  in  "  The  Tempest,"  Act  II,  Scene  II, 


409]    PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING       157 

Captain  Edward  Harlow,  under  the  patronage  of  the 
Earl  of  Southampton,  visited  America  in  1611,  and  at 
"  Monhigan  Island  "  seized  three  Indians  who  had  come 
on  board  to  trade.  One  of  these  escaped  and  incited  his 
friends  to  revenge,  so  Harlow  proceeded  southward  and 
from  the  islands  in  the  vicinity  of  Cape  Cod  kidnapped 
three  others.  With  these  five  Indians  he  returned  to  Eng- 
land.1 

Though  in  the  cases  cited  the  Indians  taken  by  the  Eng- 
lish were  probably  not  destined  to  actual  slavery,  yet  in- 
stances are  not  wanting  in  which  they  were  taken  for  that 
purpose.  The  profit  to  be  derived  from  the  sales  in  the 
slave  markets  was  tempting.  Just  before  sending  out  the 
expedition  of  1614,  Captain  Henry  Harley  brought  to 
Gorges  a  native  of  the  island  of  Capawick 2  (Martha's 
Vineyard.)  This  Indian  had  been  captured  with  some 

regarding  those  who  refuse  to  help  a  lame  beggar,  but  who  will  pay 
their  money  to  see  a  dead  Indian,  may  apply  to  one  of  these  cap- 
tives. Out  of  the  common  interest  in  savages  the  poet  doubtless 
constructed  the  monster,  Caliban. 

When  the  Plymouth  colony  was  founded,  two  of  these  captives 
were  placed  on  board  a  vessel  bound  from  Bristol  to  the  coast  of 
Maine.  A  Spanish  fleet  captured  the  ship,  and  the  Indians  were 
carried  to  Spain..  Gorges  afterward  recovered  one  of  these  two, 
who,  with  at  least  two  others  of  the  original  five,  was  afterward  sent 
to  America.  Gorges,  A  Brief e  Narration  of  the  Originall  Undertakings 
of  the  Advancement  of  Plantations  into  the  parts  of  America,  etc.,  in 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  vi,  p.  54; 
Drake,  op.  cit.,  edition  of  1867,  p.  13. 

1  Hubbard,  A  General  History  of  New  England,  etc.,  in  Massachusetts 
Historical   Society    Collections,    series    2,    v,    p.    37;    Drake,    op.    cit., 
edition  of   1867,  pp.   13-14.     No  record  seems  to  exist  regarding  the 
fate  of  these  Indians.     It  may  have  been  one  of  them  whom  Gorges 
obtained  from  the  Isle  of  Wight  at  the  time  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
was  in  command.     . 

2  Gorges,  A  Brief e  Narration  of  the  Originall  Undertakings  of  the 
Advancement  of  Plantations  into  the  parts  of  America,  etc.,  in  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  vi,  p.  59. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [410 

twenty-nine  others  by  a  ship  from  London  and  taken  to 
Spain  for  sale  as  a  slave.  The  sale  failed  wholly  or  in 
part,  and  some  of  the  Indians  were  brought  to  England 
and  shown  as  curiosities  as  the  other  Indians  had  been.1 
Gorges,  though  he  had  sanctioned  the  act  of  Weymouth, 
condemned  the  action  of  the  captors  of  this  group  of  In- 
dians, for  he  feared  the  Indians  of  America  would  be  un- 
friendly to  colonial  enterprise. 

The  London  ship  above  mentioned  was  one  commanded 
by  Thomas  Hunt,  and  formed  part  of  Smith's  expedition 
for  the  carrying  of  fish,  furs  and  oil  from  New  England 
to  Virginia  and  Malaga.  Smith  took  the  first  ship  to  Vir- 
ginia and  left  Hunt  to  take  the  other  to  Spain  with  a  cargo 
of  dry  fish.  But  a  cargo  of  slaves  seemed  to  offer  greater 
gain  than  one  of  fish.  Twenty-seven  Indians  were  taken 
captive  off  the  Massachusetts  coast  and  sent  to  Spain. 
Among  this  number  was  Tisquantum  (called  Squantum  by 
the  English),  who  had  formerly  been  captured  by  Wey- 
mouth, and  who  had  been  returned  to  America.  Some  of  the 
Indians  were  sold  in  Spain  for  £20  apiece.  By  the  interfer- 
ence of  some  monks  the  further  sale  of  the  Indians  was  pre- 
vented, and  Squantum,  at  least,  was  carried  off  to  England. 
When  Gorges  sent  out  Captain  Hobson  to  America  two 
of  Hunt's  captives  accompanied  him,  but,  on  arrival,  they 
escaped  and  so  aroused  their  friends  that  a  settlement 
by  Hobson  was  prevented.  This  feeling  of  suspicion  and 
hatred  toward  the  English  must  have  found  expression,  if 
it  had  not  been  prevented  by  the  deadly  pestilence  of  1616 
which  weakened  the  Indians  of  New  England,  and  by  the 
intercession  of  Squantum  who  proved  a  firm  friend  of  the 

1  Drake,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  etc.,  ninth  edition,  bk.  ii,  p.  8; 
Gorges,  op.  cit.,  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series 
3,  vi,  p.  58;  Bradford,  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation,  pp.  111-112, 
in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History. 


4II]    PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING       159 

English  in  arranging  a  treaty  with  the  Indians.1  Hunt's 
act  was  done  entirely  on  his  own  responsibility  and  with- 
out the  knowledge  or  sanction  of  Smith  who  denounced  it 
as  a  vile  deed,  since  it  ever  afterward  kept  him  from  trading 
in  those  parts.2 

The  evidence  of  kidnapping  in  the  southern  colonies 
seems  very  meagre.  The  existing  records  deal  chiefly  with 
other  modes  of  obtaining  Indians  for  slaves.  There  were 
undoubtedly  many  cases  of  kidnapping  pure  and  simple, 
if  we  may  judge  by  the  general  attitude  of  the  colonists 
toward  the  Indians;  but  kidnapping,  considered  as  distinct 
from  any  sort  of  warfare,  was  not  a  suitable  means  of  pro- 
ducing the  number  of  Indians  needed  or  desired  by  the 
Carolina  colonists.  Trade  and  war  were  more  prolific 
means,  and  hence  were  more  largely  used.  Kidnapping 
was  a  process  of  obtaining  slaves  suited  only  to  a  locality, 
or  to  an  occasion  when  but  few  Indians  were  desired. 

Yet  certain  incidents  show  the  custom  was  practiced 
here  as  elsewhere.  An  event  of  1685  is  probably  only  one 
of  many  such  which  occurred  on  the  southern  coast  and  in 
the  interior  at  the  time  of  the  Indian  disturbances  in  that 
section,  before  war  had  actually  begun.  In  that  year  a 
vessel  from  New  York  kidnapped  four  Indians  in  the 
locality  of  Cape  Fear,  North  Carolina,  and  carried  them  to 

1  Gorges,   op.   cit.,   in   Massachusetts  Historical   Society   Collections, 
series  3,  vi,  p.  60;  Freeman,  Civilisation  and  Barbarism,  etc.,  p.  39; 
Drake,  The  Old  Indian  Chronicle,  edition  of  1867,  pp.  6-7. 

2  Smith,    A    Description    of   New   England,    etc.,    in    Massachusetts 
Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  vi,  p.  132.     There  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  Smith  had  ideas  regarding  the  Indians  different  from 
those   held   by   the   Englishmen   of   his   time   who   did   not   rank   the 
savage  above  the  position  of  the  slave,  and  who  generally  looked  upon 
the  Indians  as  a  "  degraded,  inferior  and  faithless  race,  and  no  more 
to  be  regarded  than  the  Africans."     Drake,  op.  cit.,  edition  of   1867, 
P-  7- 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [4I2 

New  York  for  sale.1  That  there  was  a  certain  amount  of 
kidnapping  carried  on  in  the  other  southern  colonies,  as  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland,  is  shown  by  the  colonial  legislation  re- 
garding the  matter,  which  will  be  discussed  later. 

It  has  been  seen  that  it  was  customary  to  enslave  Indian 
captives  taken  in  war,  and  that  certain  colonial  governments 
even  allowed  the  seizure  of  peaceable  Indians  in  time  of 
war,  lest  they  join  with  the  warring  Indians.  The  distinc- 
tion between  kidnapping,  pure  and  simple,  and  seizures 
made  in  time  of  war,  was  too  delicate  to  be  always  ob- 
served, and  was  open  to  abuse  by  unscrupulous  persons  de- 
siring to  obtain  Indians  for  sale.  Nowhere  is  this  more 
clearly  exemplified  than  in  the  New  England  colonies. 
Here,  as  in  the  south,  kidnapping  was  carried  on  by  the 
frontier  people  who  were  generally  rough  and  lawless. 
Along  with  indifference  to  the  rights  of  the  Indians,  fraud- 
ulent practices  in  trade,  and  refusal  to  sell  them  arms  and 
ammunition  on  the  slightest  suspicion  that  the  weapons 
might  be  used  against  the  whites,  the  kidnapping  of  Indians, 
and  the  selling  of  them  as  slaves  in  the  West  Indies  were 
all  numbered  among  the  causes  of  King  Philip's  War.2 

With  the  opening  of  King  Philip's  War  the  custom  was 
continued.  The  Maine  Indians  were  about  to  join  those  in 
Massachusetts  when,  through  the  efforts  of  Abraham  Shurt 
of  Pemaquid,  and  by  means  of  promises  made  to  right  their 
wrongs  and  treat  the  native  fairly  in  the  future,  the  union 
with  the  Massachusetts  Indians  was  prevented,  and  assur- 
ances of  friendship  were  exchanged  with  the  English. 
Rumors  were  soon  spread  abroad,  however,  that  the  In- 
dians were  possessed  of  arms,  and  were  forming  a  con- 
spiracy against  the  colony.  The  government  became 

1  O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Manuscripts,  etc.,  pt.  ii,  p.  117. 
*  Ellis  and  Morris,  King  Philip's  War,  p.  294;  Drake,  The  Book  of 
the  Indians,  etc.,  ninth  edition,  bk.  iii,  p.  104. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING       !6i 

alarmed  and  issued  a  warrant  to  General  Waldron  of 
Cocheco  (Dover,  New  Hampshire)  "  to  seize  every  Indian 
known  to  be  a  man  slayer,  traitor  or  conspirator".  Waldron 
took  it  upon  himself  to  issue  general  warrants  for  this  pur- 
pose. These  warrants  fell  into  the  hands  of  unprincipled 
men  who  set  about  using  them  to  immediate  advantage. 
A  vessel  was  fitted  out  at  Pemaquid  and  a  crew  organized 
for  the  purpose  of  kidnapping  Indians  for  sale  abroad. 
Shurt  remonstrated  with  the  leaders  of  the  proceeding  and 
warned  the  Indians  of  their  danger.  But  the  plan  suc- 
ceeded, at  least  in  part  A  vessel  off  Pemaquid,  com- 
manded by  one  Laughton,  succeeded  during  the  winter  of 
1676  in  capturing  several  Indians,  and  carrying  them 
abroad  for  sale.  The  Indians  complained  of  this  action, 
but  the  only  satisfaction  they  obtained  was  more  offers  of 
friendship  and  the  promise  that  means  should  be  taken  to 
return  their  captured  friends  to  them.1  Waldron  was  in- 
dicted by  the  grand  jury  for  surprising  and  stealing  seven- 
teen Indians,  carrying  them  off  to  Fayal  in  the  vessel  En- 
deavor and  selling  them  there,  but  was  acquitted.  John 
Laughton,  captain  of  the  vessel,  was  also  indicted  for  the 
same  offenses,  found  guilty  by  the  Court  of  General  Ses- 
sions, and  fined  £20. 2  More  pressing  matters  engaged  the 
attention  of  the  authorities  for  some  time,  and  no  further 
attention  was  given  to  this  event. 

Not  even  Pennsylvania  was  free  from  the  custom.  In 
1710,  the  Indians  manifested  some  uneasiness,  and  when 
the  governor  sent  a  committee  to  learn  their  wishes  they 
returned  eight  wampum  belts  which  represented  their  re- 

1  Williamson,   The  History   of  the  State   of  Maine,   etc.,  i,  p.   531 ; 
Holmes,  American  Annals,  etc.,  pp.  403-407;   Hubbard,  A    Narrative 
of  the  Indian  Wars  in  New  England,  etc.,  pp.  332-344. 

2  Records  of  the  Court  of  Assistants  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  \,  p.  86. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [414 

quests.  One  belt  signified,  so  the  Indians  explained  to  the 
committee,  that  their  old  women  desired  the  friendship  of 
the  Christians  and  Indians  of  the  government,  and  the 
privilege  to  fetch  wood  and  water  without  danger  and 
trouble;  another,  that  their  children  might  have  room  to 
play  and  sport  without  danger  of  slavery.  The  young  men 
begged  that  they  might  be  granted  the  privilege  to  hunt 
without  fear  of  death  or  slavery;  and  the  chiefs  desired  a 
lasting  peace  that  thereby  they  might  be  secured  against 
those  "  fearful  apprehensions  "  they  had  felt  for  several 
years.1  A  similar  complaint  was  made  by  the  "Senoquois"  to 
Lieutenant-Governor  Gookin.  The  Indians  asserted  that 
one  Francis  La  Tore  had  taken  a  boy  from  them  and  had 
sold  him  in  New  York,  and  requested  the  lieutenant-gover- 
nor to  inquire  about  him.2 

Whether  or  not  actual  kidnapping  of  the  natives  occurred 
in  New  York,  at  least  the  Indians  were  familiar  with  the 
custom  as  practiced  by  the  whites.  The  following  is  a  case 
in  point.  When  the  Moravian  missionaries  first  visited 
New  York,  early  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  whites,  in 
order  to  counteract  the  influence  of  Rauch,  one  of  these 
missionaries  who  was  working  at  the  Indian  town  of  She- 
komeka  east  of  the  Hudson  River,  told  the  Indians  of  that 
section  that  the  missionary  intended  to  seize  their  young 
people,  carry  them  beyond  the  seas  and  sell  them  into 
slavery.8 

Events  in  New  York  illustrate  another  phase  of  Indian 
kidnapping.  During  the  war  between  Spain  and  the  Unite( 

1  Futhey  and  Cope,  History  of  Chester  County,  Pennsylvania,  p. 

1  Rupp,  History  of  Lancaster  County,  etc.,  p.  89 — Based  on  Gookin's 
minutes  of  a  journey  in  1711  to  the  Indians  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Palatines. 

8  Brown,  The  History  of  Missions,  or,  of  the  Propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity among  the  Heathen  since  the  Reformation,  i,  p.  394. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING 

Netherlands  prizes  were  occasionally  brought  by  privateers 
to  New  Amsterdam  from  the  Caribbean  islands  and  the 
Spanish  Main.  Part  of  the  cargoes  of  these  vessels  consisted 
of  kidnapped  Spanish  Indians.  Their  presence  in  the  colony 
was  considered  undesirable  and  their  seizure  generally  un- 
fair, for  they  were  in  some  cases  of  Spanish  x  as  well  as 
Indian  blood.  After  peace  was  declared  between  Spain  and 
the  Netherlands,  1648,  hostilities  still  continued  between 
Spain  and  France.  To  privateers  flying  the  French  flag,  New 
Amsterdam  was  a  neutral  port  where  captive  negroes  and 
other  prize  goods  were  sold.  Among  these  negroes  was 
sometimes  found  a  Spanish  Indian.  In  1692,*  and  again  in 
1699,*  laws  were  passed  to  suppress  privateering.  But, 
despite  these  laws,  the  practice  was  adhered  to,  and  the 
number  of  free  Spanish  Indians  held  in  New  York  in- 
creased. A  petition  to  the  governor  of  New  York,  in  1711, 
shows  a  free  Indian  woman,  a  resident  of  Southampton, 
kidnapped  and  sold  as  a  slave  in  Madeira,  from  whence 
she  was  returned  by  the  English  consul  to  New  York.4 
This  instance  illustrates  the  work  of  pirates  also. 

1  O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts,  pt.  i,  p.  45,  rec- 
ords the  manumission  of  Manuel,  the  Spaniard,  from  slavery,  February 
17,  1648,  for  the  sum  of  300  carolus  guilders. 

2  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York,  edition  of  1894,  i>  P-  279 

3  Ibid.,   i,   p.    389.      In    1685,   the   master   of    a   Carolina   brig,    in    a 
petition  to  Governor  Dongan  of  New  York,  complained  of  Humphrey 
Ashley,   who   chartered   the  vessel   but   ruined   the  voyage  by  killing 
an    Indian    and   kidnapping   four   others   near   the    Cape   Fear    River, 
whom  he  brought  to  the  port  of  New  York.     The  result  shows  the 
colonial  government  of  New  York  not  in  favor  of  kidnapping.     The 
necessity   of   keeping   on   good   relations   with   the   Iroquois    made   it 
policy  to  discourage  the  kidnapping  custom.     So  it  was  ordered  that 
all  the  effects  of  Ashley  be  sold  at  auction  and  the  proceeds  used  to 
defray  the  cost  of  transporting  Ashley  and  the  four  Indians  back  to 
Carolina.     O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  p.  117. 

4  O'Callaghan,  op.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  n.  117. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES 

Mention  is  frequently  found  of  Spanish  Indians  in  other 
colonies,  especially  in  New  England.  Cotton  Mather 
records  buying  a  Spanish  Indian  and  giving  him  to  his 
father.1  Mayhew  mentions  the  death  of  Chilmark,  a 
Spanish  Indian  brought  from  some  part  of  the  Spanish 
Indies  when  he  was  a  boy  and  sold  in  New  England.2  The 
New  England  and  other  newspapers  contain  frequent  men- 
tion of  Spanish  Indian  runaways  and  Spanish  Indians  for 
sale  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island  and 
Pennsylvania.3  The  Boston  News  Letter  of  July  31,  1704, 
and  October  28, 1 706,  mentions  both  negro  and  Indian  slaves 
taken  off  the  coast  of  New  Spain  by  privateers  fitted  out  in 
South  Carolina.  It  may  be  that  the  so-called  Spanish 
mulatto  kidnapped  by  a  privateer,  sold  in  the  colony  of 
Pennsylvania  and  freed  by  the  council  in  1703,  was  a 
Spanish  .Indian.4 

Considering  the  prevalence  of  piracy  and  privateering 
during  the  colonial  period,  it  seems  probable  that  there  were 
not  a  few  Spanish  Indians  brought  to  the  different  colonies 
in  this  way  and  in  the  cargoes  of  negroes  from  the  West 
Indies  and  Brazil,  whose  existence  in  the  colonies  was  never 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  colonial  authorities.5 

1  Diary  of  Cotton  Mather,  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, series  7,  vii,  p.  203. 
8  Mayhew,  Indian  Converts,  etc.,  p.  120. 

3  Boston  News  Letter,   September   10,    1711;    May  2,   1715;   January 
15,   1719;   December  28,    1720;  June   18,   1724;   March  2,    1732;  Penn- 
sylvania   Gazette,    March    7,    1731 ;    New    England    Weekly    Journal. 
August  30,  1731;  October  14,  1735;  August  10,  1736;  Boston  Gazette 
or  Weekly  Advertiser,  December  22,  1718;  August  i,  1749;  New  Eng- 
land Courant,  June  17,  1723;  Boston  Weekly  Mercury,  October  2,  1735. 

4  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  ii,  pp.  112,  120. 

5  Spanish    Indians    are    mentioned    in    the    following    issues    of    the 
colonial  newspapers:  Boston  News  Letter,  November  13.  1704;  April 
29,   1706;   August  5,   1706;   May  2,   1715;   January  5,   1719;   December 
28,  1720;  June  18,  1724;  March  2,  1732;  New  England  Courant,  June 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING 

"  Kidnapping  of  Indians  was  contrary  to  express  sta- 
tute in  most,  if  not  in  all  the  colonies,  and  to  the  law  of 
nations  as  generally  recognized  in  the  international  inter- 
course of  Europeans  with  heathen  and  barbarian  nations."  x 
There  was  considerable  legislative  action  in  the  different 
colonies  intended  to  check  the  practice,  which  had,  how- 
ever, but  little  effect.  In  some  of  the  colonies  laws  were 
passed  intending  to  put  an  end  to  the  practice  by  provid- 
ing fines  and  penalties  for  the  kidnapping  of  Indians.  In 
other  colonies  legislative  or  executive  action  dealt,  not  with 
the  custom  in  general,  but  with  certain  specific  events  which 
aroused  attention  or  were  brought  by  some  one  concerned 
directly  to  the  notice  of  the  legislative  body  or  the  execu- 
tive. One  thing  is  apparent  throughout  all  the  legislation 
on  this  subject:  the  absence  of  any  particular  sympathy  for 
the  Indian  himself.  In  some  cases  the  Indian  was  only  in- 
cluded incidentally  or  by  implication  in  a  general  law  which 
made  no  specific  mention  of  him.  In  other  cases  laws  against 
kidnapping  were  passed  because  of  the  effect  that  kid- 
napping might  have  on  the  Indians  within  or  surrounding 
the  colony.  In  short,  the  motive  was  the  desire  for  self- 
protection  dictated  by  fear  of  disastrous  results,  rather  than 
by  any  humanitarian  feeling. 

It  has  been  seen  that  kidnapping  concerned  two  classes  of 
Indians,  those  taken  in  English  territory,  and  those  taken 
in  Spanish  territory  and  brought  to  the  English  colonies. 
Colonial  legislation  and  executive  action  included  both 
classes. 

17,  1723;  Boston  Gazette  or  Weekly  Journal,  August  i,  1749;  Boston 
Weekly  Mercury,  Oc'ober  2,  1735;  New  England  Weekly  Journal, 
August  30,  1731;  August  10,  1736;  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  March  7, 
1731;  American  Weekly  Mercury,  April  10,  1739. 

1  Kurd,  The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United  States,  i, 
p.  205. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [418 

The  Virginia  act  of  1657  aimed  directly  at  the  stealing 
of  Indian  children  by  Indians  who  had  been  hired  by  the 
English.  All  such  stolen  children  were  to  be  returned  to 
their  own  tribe  within  ten  days,  and  five  hundred  pounds  of 
tobacco  were  to  be  paid  by  the  offending  party  to  the  in- 
former of  such  kidnapping.1 

In  1672,  the  council  of  Maryland  forbade  the  carrying 
of  a  certain  friendly  Indian  out  of  the  colony  without 
special  license  from  the  governor.2  In  1692,  for  the  sake  of 
preserving  peace  with  the  neighboring  Indians,  a  law  was 
enacted  forbidding  any  one  to  "  entice,  surprise,  transport, 
or  cause  to  be  transported,  or  sell  or  dispose  of  any  friendly 
Indian  or  Indians  whatsoever,  or  endeavor  or  attempt  so  to 
do,  without  license  from  the  governor  for  the  time  being," 
and  offering  a  reward  to  any  informer  of  such  an  event3 
The  same  law  was  reenacted  in  1705.* 

Article  ninety-one  of  the  Massachusetts  Body  of  Liber- 
ties of  1641  provided  that  no  one  except  captives  taken  in 
just  wars  etc.  should  be  held  as  slaves  in  the  colony.5  In 
1649,  the  Body  of  Liberties  was  reenforced  by  a  law  decree- 
ing: "If  any  man  stealeth  a  man  or  mankind,  he  shall 
surely  be  put  to  death."  6  Some  attention  was  given  to 
enforcing  this  law,  for  the  records  show  an  occasional  im- 
prisonment for  stealing  Indians.7  On  July  4,  1667,  the 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  482. 

9  Archives  of  Maryland,  xv,  p.  22. 

8  Ibid.,  xiii,  p.  525.  4  Ibid.,  xxvi,  p.  514. 

6  Colonial  laws  of  Massachusetts  reprinted  from  the  edition  of  1660 
with  the  supplements  to  1672,  containing  also  the  body  of  Liberties 
of  1641,  p.  53. 

6  Colonial  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  edition  of  1672,  p.  15. 

T  Vol.  XXX,  No.  227  A.  of  the  Massachusetts  manuscript  records 
contains  a  petition,  dated  September  20,  1676,  of  one  John  Harton 
imprisoned  for  stealing  Indians,  asking  freedom  under  bail  in  order 
to  support  his  wife  and  family. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  KIDNAPPING       167 

governor  of  Barbadoes  sent  back  to  Massachusetts  two  In- 
dians that  had  been  taken  to  England  and  then  carried  to 
Barbadoes  and  sold  as  slaves.  In  an  accompanying  address 
to  the  governor  and  assistants  of  Massachusetts  he  prom- 
ised to  rectify  all  such  abuses  that  might  come  under  his 
jurisdiction.1  But  in  spite  of  laws  and  precautions  the 
practice  of  kidnapping  continued  throughout  the  colonial 
period. 

Other  colonies  followed  the  example  of  Massachusetts  in 
making  man-stealing  a  capital  crime.  New  Jersey,  in  i675,2 
and  New  Hampshire,  in  i679,3  enacted  similar  laws.  Just 
how  far  the  laws  were  intended  to  relate  to  kidnapped 
Indians  is  a  matter  for  conjecture.  They  were  in  all  prob- 
ability intended  to  apply  to  the  stealing  of  negro  slaves,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  their  content  to  show  that  they  were  in- 
tended to  relate  also  to  the  stealing  of  free  Indians. 

1  Felt,  The  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  ii,  p.  418. 

2  Learning  and  Spicer,   The  Grants,  Concessions  and  Original  Con- 
stitutions of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey,  etc.,  p.  105. 

8  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society  Collections,  viii,  p.  n. 


CHAPTER  VII 
PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

IN  all  sections  where  captives  in  war  or  kidnapped  In- 
dians were  purchased  from  the  natives,  such  buying  was 
closely  connected  with  the  fur  trade.  The  general  fickle- 
ness and  instability  of  the  Indian's  character,  which  caused 
the  tribes  to  change  their  allegiance  so  readily  from  one 
white  race  to  the  other,  made  easy  the  acquisition  of  slaves 
along  with  other  commodities.  The  routes  along  which  the 
fur  trade  was  carried  on  facilitated  both  the  acquisition  of 
Indians  and  their  transportation  to  the  markets.  And  the 
fact  that  furs  and  the  agricultural  products  of  the  south 
were  not  commodities  that  competed  with  English  wares 
eliminated  opposition  to  the  traffic  in  Indians.1 

Throughout  the  region  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the 
Great  Lakes  the  "  coureurs  de  bois  "  collected  furs  and  pur- 
chased slaves,2  both  of  which  they  sold  to  Carolina  traders 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  in  some  cases 
they  went  to  the  Carolinas  directly  to  effect  their  sales.3 
Throughout  the  Carolinas,  the  Mississippi  and  Illinois 
country  and  the  west,  the  fur  and  Indian  trade  was  heavy. 
By  1720  the  Carolina  fur  trade  had  reached  very  large 
dimensions,  and  the  trade  in  Indians  had  developed  propor- 
tionally, so  that  at  "  set  times  of  the  year  "  a  flourishing 

1  Hewat,  op.  cit ,  i,  p.  126. 
*  Margry,  op.  cit.,  vi,  p.  316. 

3  Ibid.,  v,  pp.   178,  354,  360,  361 :   Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, xvi,  p.  332. 

168  [420 


42 1 ]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE  rfg 

business  in  "  dressed  deer  skins,  furs  and  young  Indian 
slaves  "  was  carried  on  by  the  traders.1 

In  the  Carolinas  the  custom  of  purchasing  their  prisoners 
from  the  friendly  Indians,  the  holding  of  these  captives  in 
the  colony  as  slaves,  or,  possibly,  their  subsequent  sale  to 
the  West  India  islands,  existed  almost  from  the  beginning 
of  the  colony.2  But  the  proprietors,  anxious  to  cultivate  the 
friendship  of  the  Indians,  forbade,  in  the  temporary  laws 
sent  out  to  Governor  Sayle  in  1671,  that  any  Indian  on  any 
pretext  whatever  be  made  a  slave,  or  without  his  own  con- 
sent be  carried  out  of  the  country.3 

Yet  the  traffic  in  Indians  continued.  The  adventurous 
nature  of  the  settlers,4  combined  with  the  need  for  laborers 
which  could  be  partially  supplied  by  the  use  of  Indians  at 
home  or  by  the  negroes  for  whom  they  could  be  readily  ex- 
changed in  the  islands,  and  coupled  with  the  attraction  of 
good  prices  which  the  Indians  brought  when  sold  for  cash, 
induced  both  planters  and  government  officials  to  enter 
largely  into  the  trade. 

1  South  Carolina  Historical  Society  Collections,  v,  pp.  166,  460-462 ; 
Narratives  of  Early  Carolina  (Woodward's  relation  of  his  Westo 
voyage),  p.  133,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History; 
Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  vii,  p.  634.  One  of  the 
instruments  of  supply  was  the  Cherokee.  Thomas,  The  Indians  of 
North  America,  etc.,  p.  96;  Logan,  The  History  of  Upper  Carolina, 
i,  p.  174. 

*  In  1666  Robert  Sanford,  secretary  of  the  proprietors,  made  a  voy- 
age from  Cape  Fear  to  Port  Royal  and  reported  to  the  proprietors 
that  the  Indians  of  that  section  were  anxious  for  friendship  with  the 
whites  "  no'  withstanding  we  .  .  .  had  killed  and  sent  away  many  of 
them."  Robert  Sanford's  Relation  of  his  Voyage  in  1666,  in  Charles- 
ton Year  Book,  1885,  p.  292. 

8  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South  Carolina,  etc..,  appendix, 
P-  353  \  Journal  of  the  Grand  Council  of  South  Carolina,  August  25, 
1671 — June  24,  1680,  p.  84. 

4-For  the  character  of  the  Carolina  settlers,  see  McCrady,  The  His- 
tory of  South  Carolina  under  the  Royal  Government,  pp.  297-298. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [422 

To  supply  the  ever-increasing  demand  for  Indian  slaves, 
the  tribes  of  the  south  and  southwest  constantly  preyed 
upon  each  other.  The  matter  of  international  rivalry  also* 
entered  largely  into  the  policy  of  the  Carolinians.  The  In- 
dians of  the  south  and  west  were  divided  in  their  allegiance 
to  the  three  white  races,  Spanish,  French  and  English. 
Each  of  these  three  nations  sought  not  only  to  win  and  hold 
the  allegiance  of  as  many  of  the  tribes  as  possible,  but  also 
to  use  these  tribes  to  strike  at  its  rival's  allies,  and  the 
readiness  with  which  the  English,  especially,  bought  the 
captives  for  slaves  served  to  keep  up  a  continuous  series  of 
depredations  of  tribe  upon  tribe.1 

The  Westo,  an  important  tribe  on  the  southern  border  of 
South  Carolina,  furnished  a  number  of  such  captives  dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  spite  of  their 
two  treaties  made  with  the  proprietors,  1677  and  1678,  in 
which  they  promised  not  to  prey  upon  the  smaller  and 
weaker  tribes  who  were  friends  and  allies  of  the  English.2 
In  1693,  the  Cherokee  sent  a  delegation  to  Governor  Smith 
of  South  Carolina  to  complain  of  the  Esaw,  Congaree,  and 
Savannah  who  were  preying  upon  those  tribes  and  selling 
the  captives  thus  obtained  as  slaves  to  the  English.  The 
Savannah,  like  the  Westo,  were  so  acting  in  violation  of 
their  treaty  by  which  they  agreed  not  to  molest  neighbor- 
ing tribes.3  In  1706,  English  Indian  allies  attacked  Pensa- 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  126,  holds  that  but  little  credit  can  be  given  to  the 
assertion  that  the  colonists  instigated  the  tribes  against  each  other 
for  the  purpose  of  trading  in  their  captives.  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp. 
126-127,  asserts  that  the  colonists  early  found  out  the  usefulness  to 
this  end  of  setting  one  tribe  of  Indians  against  another.  Lawson, 
The  History  of  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  325,  tells  of  the  Coranine  Ind'ans 
inviting  the  Machapunga  Indians  to  a  feast,  taking  them  prisoners 
and  selling  them  to  the  English. 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  126 ;  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  127. 

3  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  127. 


423]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE  iji 

>la  and  carried  off  members  of  the  Apalachee  tribe  for 

tie  as  slaves.1  On  July  10,  1708,  Thomas  Maine,  an  agent 
>f  the  general  assembly  of  South  Carolina,  reported  to  that 

>dy  that  the  Talapoosa  and  the  Chickasaw,  incited  by  the 
good  prices  which  the  traders  offered  them  for  captives, 
were  engaged  in  making  slaves  of  the  Indians  on  the  lower 
Mississippi  who  were  subject  to  the  French.  In  this  in- 
stance one  finds  the  usual  excuse  given  by  the  English  in 
such  cases :  "  some  men  think  it  both  serves  to  lessen  their 
number  before  the  French  can  arm  them,  and  it  is  a  more 
effective  way  of  civilizing  and  instructing  them  than  all 
the  efforts  used  by  the  French  missionaries  ".2 

The  French  asserted  that  the  policy  of  the  English  of 
Carolina  in  setting  one  Indian  tribe  against  another  was  a 
part  of  their  plan  for  driving  the  French  from  Louisiana 
and  the  Mississippi  River  country.3  The  process  of  obtain- 
ing Indian  slaves  through  trade  was,  then,  a  part  of  a  great 
political  contest.  The  alliance  of  the  leading  tribes,  such 
as  the  Chickasaw  and  the  Choctaw,  meant  much  to  both 
English  and  French  from  the  territorial  and  the  commercial 
standpoints.  In  consequence,  no  effort  was  spared  by  either 
of  the  white  races  to  obtain  a  dominating  influence  over 
these  tribes  in  order  to  use  them  for  their  own  benefit.  This 
benefit  consisted  largely  of  the  gain  in  trade  both  in  furs 
and  slaves.  The  French  sought  to  dissolve  this  friendship 
by  telling  the  Chickasaw  that  the  English  were  only  seeking 
to  destroy  them  by  having  them  wage  war  for  slaves,  and 
that  when  they  were  sufficiently  weakened  by  war  the  Eng- 
lish would  fall  upon  them  and  sell  them  all  as  slaves.4 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  36. 

2  Public  Records  of  Sontk  Carolina,  1706-1710,  p.  197;  B.  P.  R.  O., 
vol.  620. 

8  Winsor,  The  Mississippi  Basin,  etc.,  p.  133.     The  English  in  their 
turn  accused  the  French  of  pillaging  the  traders. 
4  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iv,  pp.  406,  507,  516. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [424 

In  consequence  of  the  unstable  nature  of  the  Indian  and 
the  influence  brought  to  bear  upon  the  tribes  by  both  French 
and  English,  it  was  but  natural  that  Indian  relations  in  the 
section  east  of  the  lower  Mississippi  should  be  kaleidoscopic 
in  character.1  As  each  tribe  gave,  or  refused  to  give,  alle- 
giance to  the  English  it  was  in  turn  preyed  upon  by  the 
English  allies.  If  one  is  to  accept  the  assertions  of  the 
French  in  the  early  eighteenth  century,  the  Chickasaw  dur- 
ing their  eight  or  ten  years  intercourse  with  the  English  lost 
five  hundred  prisoners,  and  the  Choctaw,  eight  hundred, 
sold  as  slaves  by  the  English.2 

The  opening  of  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  in- 
creased the  activity  of  both  English  and  French  among  the 
Indians  and  the  consequent  preying  of  tribe  upon  tribe. 
The  French  asserted  that  they  established  their  colony  at 
Mobile  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  savages  of  the  neigh- 
borhood as  allies  of  the  French  and  Spanish  against  the 
English  and  Chickasaw  whose  purpose,  in  their  opinion,  was 
to  win  them  over  or  else  destroy  them  by  enslavement.3  By 
1700  the  English  of  Carolina  had  crossed  the  Mississippi 
River  and  on  the  west  bank  pursued  the  same  tactics  with 
the  Indians  as  elsewhere.4  Slaves  were  obtained  by  the 
English  and  Chickasaw  from  nations  as  far  distant  as  the 

1  On  June  18,  1718,  Robert  Johnson,  governor  of  Carolina,  reported 
that  he  had  made  peace  "  with  several  nations,  particularly  the  great 
nation  of  the  Creeks  who  live  to  the  southward  near  St.  August'ne," 
and  added  that  "  the  treaties  with  them  are  very  precarious  so  long 
as  the  French  from  Morels  and  the  Spaniards  from  St.  Augustine 
live  and  have  intercourse  amongst  them,  and  do  continually  by  pres- 
ents and  furnishing  them  with  arms  and  ammunition  and  buying  the 
slaves  and  plunder,  encourage  them  to  war  upon  us."  Public  Rec- 
ords of  South  Carolina,  1717-1720,  vii,  p.  135;  B.  P.  R.  O .,  B.  T., 
x,  p.  2157. 

3  -Margry,  op.  cit.,  iv,  p.  517.  s  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  578. 

4  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  544;  Report  concerning  Canadian  Archives,  1905,  i,  p.  523. 


425]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

Taensa.1  In  furtherance  of  their  scheme  to  win  the  friend- 
ship of  the  warlike  Chickasaw,  and  so  strike  a  blow  at  the 
English  and  protect  their  allies  from  the  slave  raids  of  the 
former,  the  French  repeatedly  sought  to  make  peace  be- 
tween the  Chickasaw  and  Choctaw.2  But  the  English  influ- 
ence was  too  strong  for  such  a  peace  to  be  permanent  so 
long  as  the  Choctaw  remained  allies  of  the  English.  The 
peace  arranged  by  Bienville  in  1703  was  broken  in  1705  by 
the  Chickasaw  making  an  irruption  into  the  territory  of  the 
Choctaw,  capturing  a  number  of  their  people  and  selling 
them  to  the  English  of  Carolina.3  A  later  peace  arranged 
by  Bienville  was  no  more  permanent,  for  in  1711  the 
Chickasaw,  at  the  instigation  of  the  English,  fell  upon  the 
Choctaw  and  word  was  brought  to  Bienville  that  three  hun- 
dred Choctaw  women  and  children  had  been  carried  off  as 
slaves  by  the  Indian  allies  of  the  English  and  Chickasaw, 
and  that  the  Chickasaw  themselves  had  carried  off  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty.4  By  1713  English  traders  and  agents  were 
among  the  Natchez  Indians  to  purchase  Indians  whom  the 
French  accused  them  of  obtaining  by  exciting  the  tribes 
against  each  other.5 

In  their  relations  with  the  Indians  the  Carolina  pro- 
prietors appear  to  have  been  playing  a  double  game.  They 
posed  as  protectors  of  the  tribes  and  made  treaties  to  insure 
the  peace  and  safety  of  their  allies.  Consistently  with  such 
action,  also,  they  opposed  the  purchase  by  the  colonists  of 

1  French,  op.  cit.,  pt.  iii,  p.  32. 

*  Ibid.,  new  series,  i,  p.  86. 

8 Ibid.,  new  series,  i,  p.  97;  pt.  iii,  p.  33. 

4  Ibid.,  pt.  iii,  p.  34. 

5  Ibid.,  new  series,  p.  123 ;  Margry,  op.  cit.,  v,  p.  506.     The  slaves  ac- 
quired on  this  special  occasion  were  from  the  Shawnee  nation,   and 
had    been    taken    by    a    combined    force    of    Chickasaw.    Yazoo    and 
Natchez. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [426 

captives  taken  in  various  intertribal  difficulties.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  was  the  proprietors  themselves  who  gave  per- 
mission to  sell  in  the  West  Indies  the  Indian  captives  taken 
by  the  colonists  in  wars  against  the  tribes.1  The  distinc- 
tion, if  any  existed,  between  the  classes  of  captives  obtained 
in  various  ways  and  held  as  slaves,  was  too  fine  a  one  for 
the  colonists  to  appreciate;  hence  the  purchase  and  sale  of 
Indians  continued. 

In  short,  the  whole  attitude  of  the  proprietors  on  the 
subject  came  primarily  from  jealousy  for  the  colonial  offi- 
cials, and  not  from  feelings  of  humanity  or  sympathy  with 
the  Indians.  They  opposed  any  action  of  the  colonial  offi- 
cials which  tended  to  make  them  independent  of  the 
proprietors'  authority.  This  explains  why  they  removed 
the  deputies,  Mathews,  Moore  and  Middleton,  and  Gover- 
nor West,  also,  in  1683,  f°r  selling  Indians  to  the  West 
Indies.2  News,  in  fact,  had  reached  the  proprietors  that  the 
dealers  in  Indians  were  the  "  greatest  sticklers  "  against 
having  the  parliament  elected  according  to  the  proprietors' 
instructions,  so  drastic  measures  were  necessary.  The  fact 
that  the  proprietors  chose  to  succeed  West,  Sir  John  Yea- 
mans,  a  man  filled  with  the  slave  sentiment  of  Barbadoes,3 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  they  entertained  no  hostile  feel- 
ings against  the  system  of  slavery  in  general. 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  132. 

1  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  78.  In  their  letter  to  West,  telling  him  of 
their  sanction  of  his  appointment,  the  proprietors  cautioned  him 
against  appointing  any  deputies,  including  Mathews,  Moore  and 
Middleton,  who  might  belong  to  the  opposing  party.  Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  colonial  series,  xii,  p.  n.  West  became  governor  in 
1674. 

8  Oldmixon,  The  British  Empire  in  America,  i,  p.  337;  Grahame, 
op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  115.  Yeamans  prospered  so  well  in  the  traffic  in  negroes 
with  Barbadoes  that,  in  1684,  he  returned  to  his  plantation  and  the 
office  of  governor  was  restored  to  West. 


427]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

A  secondary  reason  for  the  opposition  of  the  Carolina 
proprietors  to  Indian  slavery  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  stirring 
up  of  the  tribes  by  the  colonists  in  order  to  obtain  captives 
for  slaves  resulted  in  danger  and  damage  to  the  colony, 
which  necessarily  meant  financial  loss  to  the  proprietors. 
To  carry  out  the  idea  of  protecting  the  Indians,  the  grand 
council,  in  accordance  with  previous  instructions  from  its 
superiors,  sent  two  agents  to  visit  the  plantations  in  1680 
and  bring  to  Charleston  all  Indian  slaves  whom  the  Westo 
had  sold  to  the  planters.  These  slaves  were  set  at  liberty.1 
In  the  same  year,  the  proprietors  appointed  a  commission 
to  prevent  the  trade  in  Indians  and  to  decide  all  cases  aris- 
ing in  future  between  Indians  and  English.2  The  commis- 
sion proved  a  failure  and  was  abolished  in  1682  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  used  for  the  oppression  instead  of  the 
protection  of  the  natives.3 

The  proprietors  continued  their  directions  to  the  gover- 
ns regarding  the  sale  of  Indians.  On  May  10,  1682,  they 
istructed  Governor  Joseph  Moreton  that  upon  no  pretense 
reason  whatsoever  was  he  to  suffer  any  Indian  to  be  sent 
iway  from  Carolina,  asserting  that  they  had  taken  into 
icir  protection  as  subjects  of  England  all  the  Indians 
n  four  hundred  miles  of  Charleston.  Hence  the  In- 
[ians  must  not  be  made  slaves  in  war,  or  in  any  way  injured 
the  colonists  without  proprietary  permission.4  Addi- 
:ional  instructions,  September  30,  1683,  forbade  the  gov- 
lor  and  council  to  allow  the  transportation  of  any  In- 
tians  without  the  consent  of  the  parliament,  and  gave  the 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  p.  126. 

1  West  was  a  member  of  this  commission. 

8  Chalmers,  Political  Annals  of  the  Province  of  Carolina,  in  Carroll, 
?/>.  cit.,  ii,  p.  314. 

4  Public  Records  of  South  Carolina,  i,  1663-1684,  p.  141 ;  B.  P.  R.  O., 
Colonial  Entry  Book,  xx,  p.  184. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [428 

palatine's  court,  to  be  assembled  by  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil for  the  purpose,  the  privilege  of  proposing  such  an  act 
to  the  parliament.  Any  officer  commissioned  by  the  coun- 
cil or  chosen  by  the  palatine's  court  who  transported  In- 
dians without  a  license  was  to  be  at  once  dismissed.1 

A  battle  royal  was  now  on  between  the  proprietors,  with 
perhaps  a  small  number  of  sympathizers  in  the  parliament 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  council  and  traders  on  the  other. 
The  proprietors  made  inquiries  regarding  the  selling  of  In- 
dians both  from  the  council  and  from  private  individuals.2 
In  a  letter,  September  30,  1686,  also,  they  set  forth  their 
dissatisfaction  with  the  condition  of  affairs  and  asserted 
their  belief  that  "  the  private  gains  made  by  some  by 
buying  slaves  of  the  Indians  had  more  to  do  with  the 
opinion  that  they  ought  to  be  transported  than  any  consid- 
eration of  public  safety  or  benefit."  s 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  xi,  pp.  508-510. 

2  The  colonial  officials  persistently  denied  that  they  stirred  up  the 
tribes  to  make  war  upon  each  other  so  as  to  obtain  captives  for  slaves. 
Such  letters  and  statements  of  denial  are   found  in  North   Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  252.     (A  letter  of  April  5,  1716)  ;  Journal  of 
the  Board  of  Trade,  Public  Record  Office,  Co.  391,  25  R.,  xvii,  p.  175 
(Testimony  rendered  July  16,  1715).     The  government  officials  claimed 
that  the   Indian  outbreaks  against  the  English  were   caused,   not  by 
any  action  of  the  officials  in  stirring  them  up  to  obtain  slaves,  but 
rather  by  the  abuses  practiced  upon  them  by  the  traders  and  by  the 
inability  of  the  colonial  government  to  control  the  traders.    Journal 
of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Public  Record   Office,   Co.  391,  25   R.,  xvii, 
pp.  168,  169,  176,  191. 

3  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  in  Carroll,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  314.     This  special  letter 
of  the  proprietors  was  called  forth  by  Captain   Godfrey's  treatment 
of  the  Indians,  and  by  the  opinions  of  private  individuals  expressed 
in  letters  to  them.     The  proprietors  had  already  struck  a  blow  at  the 
council  by  giving  the  parliament   a   right  to   punish   members  of  the 
council  for  misbehavior.    The  council  had  complained  of  this  to  the 
proprietors,  who  in  turn  asserted  that  the   Indian   dealers    (members 
of  the  council)  feared  lest  the  parliament  have  too  much  power  over 
them.     Archdale,  A  New  Description,  etc.,  in  Carroll,  op.  tit.,  ii,  p.  100. 


429]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

The  dealers  in  Indians  stated  three  reasons  for  the  traffic : 
that  the  Savannah,  having  united  all  their  tribes,  had  be- 
come so  powerful  that  it  was  dangerous  to  disoblige  them; 
that  South  Carolina  was  at  war  with  the  Waniah  in  which 
the  Savannah  assisted ;  that  humanity  decreed  the  buying  of 
their  slaves  to  keep  them  from  "  a  cruel  death  ".  These 
reasons  for  the  traffic  were  held  by  the  proprietors  to  be 
unsound.  They  declared  the  buying  of  slaves  from  the 
Savannah  alone,  and  the  forbidding  of  such  buying  from 
the  other  Indians  would  serve  not  only  to  keep  the  Savan- 
nah united,  but  would  join  the  other  tribes  to  them  and  so 
strengthen  them  that  they  would  be  a  danger  to  the  colony. 
The  war  with  the  Waniah,  they  thought,  had  been  the  re- 
sult of  a  quarrel  that  the  whites  picked  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  Indians  to  transport.  If  the  Savannah  were  to 
take  captive  the  Waniah  and  sell  them  to  the  dealers  in 
Indians,  it  was  only  to  those  few  dealers  who  had  a  share 
in  the  government.  These  dealers  had  resorted  to  subter- 
fuge in  order  to  force  the  Savannah  to  sell  only  to  them. 
The  emissaries  of  peace  sent  by  the  Westo  and  the  Waniah 
to  the  Savannah,  declared  the  proprietors,  had  been  seized 
by  the  last  named  and  sold  to  the  dealers,  thus  prolonging 
both  the  Waniah  and  the  Westo  wars,  and  likely  to  cause 
other  wars.  By  purchasing  slaves  from  the  Savannah, 
also,  these  Indians  were  encouraged  to  make  raids  upon 
their  weaker  neighbors.  Such  activities  when  discussed  in 
England  prevented  settlers  from  going  to  South  Carolina, 
fearing  lest  the  runaway  negroes  could  not  be  brought  back 
on  so  large  a  continent  unless  the  Indians  were  preserved. 
Finally,  said  the  proprietors,  God's  blessing  could  not  be 
expected  on  a  government  so  managed.1 

The  proprietors,  however,  did  not  wish  to  forbid  the 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  xi,  pp.  508-510. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [430' 

selling  of  Indians.  They  recognized  the  usefulness,  as 
West  had  done,  of  permitting  "  soldiers  for  their  encour- 
agement, to  make  the  best  advantage  that  they  can  out  of 
their  prisoners  " ;  but  they  wanted  the  initiative  in  the 
matter  to  rest  with  themselves.  Accordingly  they  author- 
ized the  parliament  to  pass  acts  for  the  exportation  of  "such 
Indians  as  they  should  decide  upon  ",  the  said  Indians  to  be 
shown  in  the  house  and  examined  by  sworn  interpreters  as 
to  their  capture,  name  and  station.  The  license  issued  by 
the  parliament  was  to  specify  the  person  to  whom  the  leave 
of  exportation  was  granted.  The  decision  of  the  parlia- 
ment was  to  be  rendered  by  a  majority  of  the  house.  This 
license  was  not  granted  by  a  standing  order,  but  for  "  each 
batch  ".  Anyone  exporting  Indians  without  such  a  license 
was  to  receive  the  utmost  punishment  prescribed  by  law.1 

During  his  administration,  John  Archdale,  consistent 
with  his  religious  persuasion  of  Quaker  and  his  political 
position  of  proprietor,  did  what  he  could  to  check  the  traffic 
in  Indians.  In  1695,  a  party  of  Yamasee  (English  In- 
dians) fell  upon  a  party  of  Spanish  Indians  not  far  from 
St.  Augustine,  took  them  prisoners  and  brought  them  to 
Charleston  for  sale  to  the  English  islands  as  slaves.  On  ex- 
amining the  captives  and  finding  that  they  were  Christians, 
Archdale  ordered  the  chief  of  the  Yamasee  to  return  them 
to  the  Spanish  governor.  The  difficulty  of  restraining  In- 
dian tribes  from  revenging  themselves  upon  their  enemies 
and  selling  their  captives  as  slaves,  Archdale  himself 
records.2 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  xi,  pp.  508-510. 

2  Archdale,   op.  cit.,  in  Carroll,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.   107;   Hewat,  op.   cit., 
\,  p.  78;  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  xi,  p.  508;  Public 
Records  of  South  Carolina,  i,  1663-1684,  p    266;  B.  P.  R.  0.,  Colonial 
Entry  Book,  xxii,  p.  20.     The  Journal  of  the  English  Board  of  Trade, 
vol.   xi,   p.    174,   under   the   date  August    19,    1698,    and   the   marginal 


43 1  ]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

In  1700,  James  Moore  forced  the  council  to  annul  the 
election  of  Moreton  as  governor,  and  was  himself  chosen 
for  the  office.  He  then  packed  council  and  assembly  with 
his  associates  and  followers.  These  persons  at  once  pro- 
ceeded to  use  their  offices  for  their  own  financial  benefit, 
and  one  of  the  means  practiced  to  that  end  was  the  selling 
of  Indians  to  the  islands  of  the  West  Indies.  Moore  issued 
commissions  to  persons  to  capture  all  the  Indians  they  could 
for  his  own  profit.1  At  his  instigation  the  Apalachee  at- 
tacked the  missions  of  Santa  Catalina,  on  the  island  of  that 
name  off  the  coast  of  the  present  state  of  Georgia,  and  the 
mission  of  Santa  Fe  in  Florida,  burned  the  villages,  mas- 
sacred many  Christian  Indians  and  carried  off  others  to  be 
sold  as  slaves  in  Carolina.2  The  members  of  the  assembly 
and  other  inhabitants  of  the  colony,  June  26,  1705,  com- 
plained to  the  proprietors  of  Moore's  enslaving  Indians, 
not  on  the  grounds  of  justice  and  humanity,  but  of  expe- 
diency. His  action  was  ruining  the  Indian  trade  by  creat- 
ing confusion  among  the  Indians,  and  would,  they  feared, 
arouse  an  Indian  war.3  The  proprietors  denounced  the 
governor  but  did  not  stop  the  practice. 

heading  American  Indian  Slaves,  contains  the  following  direction  to 
the  governor  of  Bermudas :  "And  upon  observation  made  that  it  is 
commonly  said  there  are  many  Americans  at  Bermuda  kept  as  slaves; 
ordered,  that  the  governor  be  required  to  give  an  account,  what 
number  there  are  of  them,  from  whence  they  are  bought  and  by 
whom  imported."  The  governor's  reply  was  a  mere  tabulation  of 
slaves,  with  a  statement  of  their  sex  and  the  locality  in  which  they 
resided,  without  any  special  reference  to  Indian  slaves.  No  further 
reference  was  made  to  the  matter  by  the  Board  of  Trade. 

1  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  appendix,  p.  456. 

2  O'Gorman,  A  History  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  United 
States,  p.  39. 

3  Rivers,  op.  cit.,  appendix,  p.  456 ;  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records, 
ii,   p.   904.     The    complaint    read :    "  ruined    trade   in    skins    and    furs 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [432 

By  1707  the  activities  of  the  traders  in  Indian  slaves  had 
become  so  notorious  that  the  South  Carolina  assembly  took 
up  the  consideration  of  means  to  remedy  the  matter.  A 
board  of  commissioners,  nine  in  number,  was  appointed  to 
have  entire  charge  of  the  subject.  By  them  it  was  declared 
that  one  condition  of  a  trader's  license  and  bond  should 
provide  against  the  seizure  of  free  Indians.  Provision  was 
also  made  for  the  appointment  of  Indian  agents  with  resi- 
dence (except  a  vacation  of  two  months)  among  the  In- 
dians, said  agents  to  give  a  bond  of  £200  and  receive  a 
yearly  salary  of  £250.  Their  term  of  office  was  limited  to 
one  year.1  But  conditions  became  worse  after  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  than  before.2  Indian  slaves  were  con- 
stantly brought  to  Charleston  and  sold  openly  in  the  market 
place.  Unprincipled  men  were  granted  trading  privileges 
and  made  Indian  agents.3  A  report  on  the  condition  of  the 
colony  in  1708  shows  that  these  slaves  were  sold  in  Boston, 
Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Virginia  and  the 
West  Indies.4 

It  was  the  purpose  of  the  assembly  to  have  the  board 
regulate  the  trade  and  keep  it  in  the  hands  of  the  govern- 
ment. Its  agents  were  required  to  take  the  following  oath : 
"  I,  A.  B.,  do  promise  and  declare  that  I  will  well  and  truly 
observe  and  perform  all  the  powers,  orders  and  instruc- 

(whereby  we  held  our  chief  correspondence  with  England)  and 
turned  it  into  a  trade  of  Indians  or  slave  making,  whereby  the  In- 
dians to  the  south  and  west  of  us  are  already  involved  in  blood  and 
confusion,  a  trade  so  odious  and  abominable,  that  every  colony  in 
America  (although  they  have  equal  temptation)  abhor  to  follow." 

1  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  172. 

*  State  of  the  British  and  French  Colonies  in  North  America,  p.  25. 

8  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  1859,  xiii,  p.  300. 

4  Thomas,   op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  95-100;  Journal  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
British  Public  Record  Office,  Co.  391,  25  R.,  xvii,  p.  168. 


433]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE  jgi 

tions,  as  shall  be  from  time  to  time  given  or  sent  to  me  by 
the  present  commissioners,  and  that  I  will  not  embezzle  or 
make  away  with  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  skins, 
furs,  slaves,  or  other  good  or  liquors  whatsoever,  that  shall 
be  entrusted  or  given  in  charge  to  me  or  come  into  my 
hands,  belonging  to  the  public,  and  that  I  will  not  directly 
or  indirectly  trade  with  any  Indian  whatsoever  for  any 
skins,  furs  or  slaves,  but  for  the  sole  use  of  the  public ;  and 
that  I  will  keep  secret  and  not  divulge  the  debates  and  reso- 
lutions of  this  Board,  so  help  me  God."  * 

Further  directions  required  that  the  agents  buy  no  male 
slaves  above  the  age  of  fourteen  years;2  that  they  should 
"  not  buy  knowingly  any  free  Indian  for  a  slave,  nor  make 
a  slave  of  any  Indian  that  ought  to  be  free,  that  is  to  say, 
an  Indian  of  any  nation  that  is  in  amity  and  under  the  pro- 
tection of  this  government" ; 3  and  that  they  should  not  buy 
an  Indian  as  slave  until  such  had  been  at  least  three  days 
in  the  town  of  the  warrior  who  had  captured  him.4  Any 
Indian  trader  who,  by  his  own  confession  or  by  verdict  of 
a  jury,  should  be  found  guilty  of  selling  any  free  Indian 
as  a  slave,  at  any  time  after  the  ratification  of  this  act, 

1  Indian  Book,  1710-1718,  i,  p.  17,  in  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  His- 
torical Commission  Department.  The  letters  of  the  missionaries  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts 
stationed  in  South  Carolina  contain  frequent  mention  of  the  traders' 
action:  Letters  of  Le  Jau,  1708;  February  and  July,  1711  (The  letter 
of  February  20,  1711,  relates  an  instance  of  the  traders  bringing  back 
one  hundred  Indian  slaves);  August  10,  1714;  Letters  of  Johnston, 
January  27,  1715;  December  19,  1715,  in  Records  of  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

1  Indian  Book,  1710-1718,  i,  p.  29,  in  Columbia,  South  Carolina  His- 
torical Commission  Department,  (directions  given  to  traders,  July 
24,  1716). 

3  Ibid.,  i,  p.  156,  (directions  given  to  traders,  May  14,  1717)  ;  i,  p.  28, 
(directions  given  to  traders  July  24,  1716);  i,  p.  40,  (directions  given 
to  traders,  July  27,  1716). 

4  Logan,  of),  cit.,  i,  p.  180. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [434 

should  forfeit  the  sum  of  £60  current  money  of  the  prov- 
ince, and  failing  to  pay  such  fine,  was  to  receive  such  cor- 
poral punishment  as  the  judges  of  a  General  Session  might 
decree,  not  extending  to  life  or  limb;  and  upon  conviction 
for  such  offense  the  Indian  slave  so  sold  was  declared  free. 
The  directions  further  urged  the  agents  to  aim  constantly 
to  promote  peace  and  good  will  among  all  nations  of  In- 
dians with  whom  South  Carolina  was  accustomed  to  trade, 
and  to  engage  as  many  others  as  possible  to  embrace  the 
friendship  and  amity  of  the  English.1 

In  the  enactment  of  these  measures  it  was  not  the  pur- 
pose of  the  assembly  to  stop  the  traffic  in  Indians,  but  only 
to  regulate  it  by  preventing  the  illegal  acquisition  of  In- 
dians by  the  traders  and  by  requiring  the  traders  to  dispose 
of  their  Indians  to  the  board  itself  which  would  then  sell 
the  Indians  as  it  chose.2  Their  action  was  dictated  by  a 
double  purpose:  to  prevent  the  traders  kidnapping  Indians 
belonging  to  the  tribes  friendly  to  the  colony  and  so  bring 
on  dangerous  Indian  uprisings;  and  to  obtain  the  profits 
of  the  trade  for  the  colonial  exchequer,  which  not  infre- 
quently meant  for  their  own  profit.  Humanitarian  feeling 
for  the  Indians  played  no  part  in  their  action.  The  matter 
was  made  more  complicated  by  the  governor  neglecting  to 
sustain  the  action  of  the  assembly.  The  explanation  of  his 
attitude  is  not  difficult.  He  was  accustomed  to  obtain  sub- 
stantial perquisites  from  the  sale  of  Indians.  Valuable 
gifts  were  presented  him  by  the  traders  for  allowing  them 
to  remain  unmolested.  On  one  occasion  Governor  Nathan 

1  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  187. 

2  On  being  handed  over  to  the  board,  the  Indians  were  ordered  to  be 
sold  at  auction  at  a  specified  time  and  place  to  anyone  who  would 
promise  to   export  them   from  the  province  within   a   specified  time. 
In  the  meantime  they  were  fed  and  sheltered  at  public  expense.    Logan, 
op.  cit.,  i,  p.  156. 


435]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

Johnson  refused  £200  offered  by  the  assembly  for  his  In- 
dian perquisites.1 

As  already  observed,  the  check  on  the  traders  by  the 
creation  of  the  board  of  commissioners  was  so  slight  that 
they  continued  as  before  to  traffic  in  Indians  with  impunity. 
Unprincipled  traders  were  licensed  and  obtained  Indians 
wherever  and  however  they  could.  Some  traders  went 
so  far  as  to  keep  a  body  of  slaves  with  them  in  the  In- 
dian nation  where  they  traded,  whom  they  sent  out 
to  attack  other  tribes  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  cap- 
tives.2 Attempts,  of  course,  were  made  by  the  board  to 
check  the  traffic.  At  its  meetings  Indian  agents  were  tried 
for  illegally  reducing  Indians  to  slavery,3  and  on  one  oc- 
casion it  was  ordered  that  a  woman  and  child  should  be 
brought  back  from  New  York  where  they  had  been  sold 
as  slaves.4  In  1711,  an  attempt  was  made  to  check  the 
practice  of  the  traders  employing  Indian  slaves  in  the  man- 
ner above  mentioned,  by  issuing  the  following  order  to  all 
traders :  "  You  shall  permit  none  of  your  slaves  to  go  to 
war  on  any  account  whatsoever."  5  This  order  had  as 
little  effect  as  those  which  preceded  it.  The  influence  of 
the  traders,  indeed,  among  the  friendly  tribes  could  accom- 
plish the  same  result  by  stirring  them  up  against  other 
tribes.6 

These  and  other  efforts  at  regulation  of  the  Indian  slave 

1  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  171.    Johnson  became  governor  in  1703. 

1  Ibid.,  i,  p.  182. 

1  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  175,  177,  180,  181,  182,  183  cites  such  trials. 
A  letter  of  Steevens,  missionary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  in  South  Carolina,  1708,  tells  of  the 
trial  and  acquittal  of  traders  for  the  illegal  enslavement  of  Spanish 
Indians.  Records  of  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

4  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  180.  5  Ibid.,  i,  p.  182. 

6  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  183-186.  Case  of  Alexander  Long  and  Eleazer  Wiggon 
who  in  revenge  stirred  up  the  Cherokee  to  destroy  the  Euchee. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [436 

trade  were  alike  fruitless.  The  general  weakness  of  the 
province  made  it  impossible  to  control  the  action  of  the 
traders  on  the  frontier  and  outside  the  boundary  of  the 
province.  Reports  to  the  English  Board  of  Trade  made 
frequent  mention  of  the  state  of  affairs  but  conditions  were 
not  remedied.1  On  October  27,  1720,  several  merchants 
suggested  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  as  a  means  of  improving 
conditions  in  South  Carolina,  "  to  prohibit  by  still  greater 
penalties  the  selling  as  a  slave  of  any  person  of  the  nations 
in  amity  with  us  throughout  the  continent  and  to  prevent 
abuse  therein ",  and  declaring  that  "  none  but  deputies 
from  the  public  should  have  power  to  buy  Indian  slaves- 
from  those  Indians  in  alliance  with  us  as  taken  in  war, 
which  deputies  on  public  account  should  be  obliged  to  trans- 
fer them  to  the  Islands  there  to  be  sold  on  condition  not  to 
be  sent  to  the  province  again  ".2 

But  the  provincial  authorities  could  not  enforce  these 
decrees,  so  the  action  of  the  traders  continued  unmo- 
lested until  checked  by  other  causes.  Government  officials 
continued  to  league  with  the  traders.  As  late  as  1754,  a 
Catawba  trader  wrote  to  the  board  of  commissioners  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  Catawbas  held  a  council  yesterday  in  the  king's 
house,  and  have  resolved  to  go  with  the  English  against  the 
French.  They  want  me  and  my  people  to  go  with  them, 

1  On  July  15,  1715,  Mr.  Byrd,  one  of  the  council  of  Virginia,  ap- 
peared before  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  in  reply  to  questions  re- 
garding the  hostilities  lately  committed  by  the  Indians  on  Carolina, 
declared  the  action  of  the  Indians  to  be  due  to  the  cupidity  of  the 
traders  and  the  custom  of  encouraging  the  Indians  to  wage  war  on 
each  other  that  the  traders  might  buy  the  cap  ives  as  slaves.  Journal 
of  the  Board  of  Trade,  B.  P  R.  O.,  Co  391,  25  R.,  xvii,  pp.  167-168. 
Similar  statements  were  made  by  Mr.  Banister,  Ibid.,  p.  169,  Mr. 
Kettleby,  Ibid.,  p.  175  and  Mr.  Crawley,  Ibid.,  p.  191. 

z  South  Carolina  Public  Records,  April  to  December,  1720,  vii,  p.  226; 
British  Public  Record  Office,  South  Carolina,  Board  of  Trade,  Co.  5, 
358  A  14  and  15,  October  27,  1720. 


437]  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

and  we  are  willing  to  do  so,  even  without  pay,  on  one  con- 
dition: that  we  be  allowed  to  keep  as  our  own  property 
whatever  plunder  in  the  way  of  Indian  slaves  we  may  be 
able  to  capture."  There  are  frequent  intimations  in  the 
records  that  Indian  slaves  were  still  being  held  in  South 
Carolina  at  this  time,  though  their  wholesale  delivery  and 
sale  in  Charleston  had  ceased.1 

In  Virginia  trade  with  the  Indians  began  at  an  early  date, 
and  the  traffic  in  Indians  became  later  a  part  of  it.2  The 
French  reported,  in  1701,  that  the  English  from  Vir- 
ginia, established  among  the  Chickasaw,  had  armed  the 
savages  with  guns,  joined  with  them  in  their  expeditions 
against  other  people,  especially  the  "  Colipissas  "  (Aco- 
lapissa),  and  had  sent  the  prisoners  to  be  sold  as  slaves  in 
the  West  Indies,  keeping  the  children  as  slaves  for  them- 
selves.3 

For  some  time  the  Virginia  authorities  did  not  recognize 
the  right  of  the  whites  to  enslave  an  Indian,  no  matter  how 
obtained.  In  the  session  of  1657-1658,  the  assembly  passed 
an  act  forbidding  the  stealing  of  Indian  children  or  the 
buying  of  them  from  Indians  or  others  for  traffic,  or  the 
selling  of  them  under  any  condition  by  the  English,  on  pen- 
alty of  500  pounds  of  tobacco.4  In  1662,  the  assembly 
passed  an  act  declaring  that  if  any  Englishman  should  bring 
in  any  Indians  as  servants  and  assign  them  to  any  one  else 
he  should  not  sell  them  as  slaves  or  for  any  longer  time 

1  Logan,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.   189.     Though  no  estimate  of  the  number  of 
Indians    enslaved    during   this    long   period    in    the    south    is    possible, 
it   was   so   large   that   the   decay  of   the   coast   Indians   has   been    at- 
tributed to  it.     Thomas,  The  Indians  of  North  America,  etc.,  ii,  p.  95. 

2  Hening,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  482;  ii,  pp.  143,  155;  Lawson,  The  History  of 
North  Carolina,  p.  280. 

3  Margry,  op.  cit.,  iv,  pp.  Ivi,  531,  544,  561. 

4  Hening,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  455. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [438 

than  English  servants  of  like  age  should  serve  by  act  of  as- 
sembly.1 The  assembly  evidently  intended  to  enforce  these 
acts,  for  in  the  session  of  1662  it  ordered  a  Powhatan  In- 
dian to  be  freed  who  had  been  sold  to  the  English  by  the 
chief  of  another  tribe  who,  according  to  the  assembly,  had 
no  right  thus  to  sell  him.2 

By  1670  the  assembly  appears  to  have  modified  in  a  meas- 
ure its  opinion  regarding  Indian  slaves.  An  act  of  that 
year  declared  Indians  taken  in  war  by  any  other  nation  and 
sold  by  such  nation  to  the  English  to  be  servants  for  life, 
if  brought  in  by  sea — if  boys  or  girls,  till  thirty  years  old; 
if  men  or  women,  twelve  years  and  no  longer.3  By  a  later 
act  of  1682  the  legislature  repealed  the  act  of  1670  and 
definitely  decided  who  should  be  slaves.  Among  those  spe- 
cified were  all  Indians  obtained  by  purchase,  in  case  they 
and  their  parents  were  not  Christians  at  the  time  of  their 
first  being  purchased  by  a  Christian,  although  after- 
wards and  before  their  importation  into  Virginia,  they 
might  have  become  converted  to  the  Christian  faith;  and 
all  Indians  thereafter  sold  by  the  neighboring  Indians  or 
any  other  trafficking  in  slaves.  But  in  1691  these  acts  in 
turn  were  repealed  and  after  that  date  no  Indian  could 
legally  be  bought  or  sold  as  a  slave  in  Virginia.4 

Legislation,  however,  did  not  end  the  bringing  of  Indian 
slaves  into  the  colony.  Lawson  records  the  sale  in  Virginia 
before  1700  of  a  young  Indian  woman  brought  from  be- 
yond the  mountains.5  In  1715,  the  Carolina  settlers  re- 
ported to  the  home  government  that  the  Sarrow  Indians 
were  selling  in  Virginia  among  other  commodities  slaves 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  143. 

8  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  155 ;  Tucker,  A  Dissertation  on  Slavery,  p.  32. 
8  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  283.  *  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  69. 

5  Lawson,  The  History  of  North  Carolina,  p.  280. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE  jg? 

(presumably  Indian  as  well  as  negro)  taken  from  the  Caro- 
lina colonists.1 

Yet  the  Indian  slaves  brought  into  Virginia  through  the 
process  of  trade  were  never  so  numerous  as  in  the  Caro- 
linas  or  the  New  England  colonies,  because  the  trade  of 
Virginia  with  the  Indian  country  was  never  so  extensive 
as  that  of  the  Carolinas,  or  with  the  Carolinas  so  extensive 
as  that  of  New  England.  Neither  was  the  industry  of  the 
Virginia  colonists  in  the  early  days  such  as  to  require  In- 
dian slaves  from  the  traders.  The  export  trade  was  largely 
carried  on  with  the  mother  country  instead  of  with  the 
colonies.  The  whole  system  of  trade  was  not  conducive  to 
traffic  in  Indians. 

In  New  England  there  was  no  direct  traffic  with  the  In- 
dian tribes  such  as  existed  in  the  south.  Instead,  Indian 
slaves  were  obtained  by  trade  with  the  other  colonies, 
notably  the  Carolinas.  Commerce  of  this  sort,  abundant 
evidence  of  which  is  furnished  by  the  newspapers  of  the 
time,  flourished  from  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury 2  until  some  time  after  the  Tuscarora  War. 

In  Massachusetts  the  number  of  Indians  imported  from 
the  south  increased  so  rapidly  that  the  colonial  authorities 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  252. 

1  A  letter  from  the  governor  and  council  of  South  Carolina,  May  7, 
1/07,  states:  "We  have  also  commerce  with  Boston,  Rhode  Island, 
Pennsylvania,  New  York  and  Virginia,  to  which  places  we  export 
Indian  slaves."  Bancroft  Papers  relating  to  Carolina,  in  New  York 
City  Public  Library,  MSS.,  vol.  i,  1662-1769;  Thomas,  The  Indians  of 
North  America,  etc.,  p.  95;  Coffin,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  New- 
bury,  p.  336;  Journal  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Public  Record  Office, 
Co.  391,  25  R,  xvii,  p.  168.  The  colonial  newspapers  mention  Carolina 
Indians  in  the  following  issues:  Boston  News  Letter,  July  31,  1704; 
October  28,  1706;  March  31,  1707;  November  15,  1708;  August  6, 
1711;  August  20,  1711;  September  10,  1711;  December  10,  i/ii;  July 
5,  1714;  September  17,  1716;  March  n,  1717;  New  England  Courant, 
August  19,  1723. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [440 

feared  certain  disastrous  effects  upon  the  colony  from  their 
presence.  Accordingly,  August  23,  1712,  an  act  was  passed, 
the  preamble  of  which  set  forth  four  reasons  for  its  enact- 
ment :  the  Indian  slaves  imported  from  the  south  were 
"malicious,  surly  and  revengeful";  the  industry  of  the 
colony  was  unlike  that  of  the  West  Indies;  with  savage 
enemies  at  hand,  it  was  dangerous  to  have  bondsmen  of  a 
kindred  race;  the  influx  of  the  slaves  discouraged  the  im- 
portation of  Christian  servants.  Accordingly  it  was  for- 
bidden to  import  "  any  Indian,  male  or  female,  by  land  or 
sea  from  any  part  or  place  whatever,  to  be  disposed  of,  sold 
or  left  within  the  province  ",  on  pain  of  forfeit  to  her 
Majesty's  government,  unless  the  offender  ''importing  such 
Indians  give  security  at  the  Secretary's  office  at  £50  per 
head,  to  transport  or  carry  out  the  same  again  within  the 
space  of  one  month  next  after  their  coming  in,  not  to  be 
returned  back  to  this  province  ".  It  was  also  provided  that 
the  captain  or  commander  of  any  ship  bringing  such  In- 
dians into  the  province  should,  within  twenty-four  hours 
after  the  arrival  of  such  ship,  report  the  names,  number 
and  sex  of  such  Indians,  and  give  security  of  £50,  under 
penalty  of  £50  for  neglect  to  do  so.1 

On  December  28,  1725,  Massachusetts  passed  an  act  re- 
garding the  exportation  of  Indians.  This  measure,  like 
that  of  1712,  was  not  humanitarian  but  self -protective. 
The  act  forbade  the  carrying  of  any  Indian  out  of  the 
province  except  by  legal  authority,  or  on  condition  of  giv- 

1  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  698.  July  15,  1715,  Mr.  Bannister  of  Vir- 
ginia appeared  before  the  Board  of  Trade  and  declared  that  the  sell- 
ing in  New  England  of  Indian  slaves  taken  in  war  had  caused  so 
much  injury  by  arous'ng  the  hostility  of  the  neighboring  natives,  that 
the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  had  been  obliged  to  pass  a  law  pro- 
hibiting the  buying  or  selling  of  any  Indians  as  slaves.  Journal  of  the 
Board  of  Trade,  Public  Record  Office,  Co.  391,  p.  169. 


441  ]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

ing  £100  security  for  the  safe  return  of  such  Indian,  due 
allowance  being  made. for  unforeseen  exigencies.1 

New  Haven,  also,  in  1656,  passed  a  general  law  ordering 
that  no  person  should  sell  "  any  servant  male  or  female  of 
what  degree  soever  ",  out  of  the  colony  unless  into  some  of 
the  other  three  colonies  belonging  to  the  New  England  Con- 
federation, without  leave  and  license  from  the  authorities 
of  that  plantation  to  which  such  servant  belonged,  under 
penalty  of  a  fine  of  £10  for  each  offense.2  The  measure 
could  be  applied  to  Indian  slaves,  though  not  intended  speci- 
fically for  that  purpose. 

After  the  Tuscarora  War  the  importation  of  "  revenge- 
ful, warlike  savages  "  alarmed  the  Connecticut  colonists 
and  led  to  definite  legislative  action  regarding  the  matter. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  several  persons  had  brought  into 
the  colony  Carolina  Indians,  "  which  have  committed  many 
cruel  and  bloody  outrages  "  there,  and  "  may  draw  off  our 
Indians  "  to  the  extent  of  arousing  hostilities  if  their  im- 
portation were  continued,  in  July,  1715,  the  governor  and 
council  decided  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  Indian  slaves 
until  the  meeting  of  the  assembly,  and  to  require  each  ship 
entering  port  with  Indians  on  board  to  give  a  bond  of  £50 
to  remove  them  from  the  colony  within  twenty  days. 
Further  they  decided  that  Indians  brought  into  the  colony 
thereafter  should  be  "  kept  in  strictest  custody  ",  and  "pre- 
vented from  communicating  with  other  Indians  ",  unless 
the  owner  gave  the  same  bond  as  above  to  take  them  out  of 
the  colony  within  twenty  days.3 

The    following    October,    the    general    court,    copying 

1  Acts  and   Resolves,   ii,   p.    364.      The  unforeseen   exigencies   were 
"  death,  danger  of  the  seas,  captivity  or  inevitable  accident." 

2  Hoadly,  Records  of  the  Colony  or  Jurisdiction  of  New  Haven  from 
May,  1653,  to  the  Union,  e'c.,  p.  177. 

8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  v,  p.  516. 


I90  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [442 

the  Massachusetts  act  of  1/12,  made  permanent  the  prohi- 
bition to  import  Indian  slaves,  since  "  divers  conspiracies, 
outrages,  barbarities,  murders,  burglaries,  thefts,  and  other 
notorious  crimes  at  sundry  times,  and  especially  of  late, 
have  been  perpetrated  by  Indians  and  other  slaves,  .  .  . 
being  of  a  malicious  and  vengeful  spirit,  rude  and  insolent 
in  their  behavior,  and  very  ungovernable,  the  overgreat 
number  of  which,  considering  the  different  circumstances  in 
this  colony  from  the  plantations  in  the  islands  and  our  hav- 
ing considerable  numbers  of  Indians,  natives  of  our  country, 
.  .  .  may  be  of  pernicious  consequence."  An  act  was  then 
passed  decreeing  the  forfeiture  of  all  Indians  thereafter  im- 
ported, and  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  £50  by  the  shipmaster 
or  any  other  person  who  might  bring  them.1  Since  this 
act  did  not  stop  the  importation,  another  was  enacted  in 
1750  providing  that  "  all  Indians,  male  or  female,  of  what 
age  soever,  imported  or  brought  into  this  colony  by  sea  or 
land,  from  any  place  whatever,  to  be  disposed  of,  left  or 
sold  within  this  colony,  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  treasury 
of  this  colony,  and  may  be  seized  and  taken  accordingly; 
unless  the  person  or  persons  importing  or  bringing  in  such 
Indian  or  Indians  shall  give  security  to  some  naval  officer 
of  this  colony  of  £50  per  head,  to  transport  or  carry  out  of 
the  same  again,  within  the  space  of  one  month  after  their 
coming,  not  to  be  returned  back  again  to  this  colony  ".2 

A  similar  act  passed  in  1774  forbade  the  importation  of 
Indian,  negro  or  mulatto  slaves.  The  act  stated  that  the 
cause  of  this  legislation  was  the  fact  that  the  "  increase  of 
slaves  in  this  colony  is  injurious  to  the  poor  and  inconveni- 
ent ".  Any  person,  therefore,  importing  Indian,  negro  or 
mulatto  slaves  or  knowingly  bringing  them  as  such,  should 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  v,  pp.  534-535. 

2  Acts  and  Laws  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  in  America,  edition  of 
1784,  p.  230. 


443]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE  lo.i 

forfeit  to  the  treasurer  of  the  colony  the  sum  of  £100  for 
each  slave  so  imported  or  purchased.1 

Rhode  Island,  in  August,  1676,  decreed  that  any  person 
importing  Indians  into  the  colony  without  permission  of 
the  colonial  authorities,  should  forfeit  all  right  to  them  and 
pay  a  fine  of  £5  to  the  colony.  Certain  persons  allowed  to 
import  such  Indians  were  directed  to  pay  half  the  sum  of 
the  sale  to  the  treasurer  or  forfeit  the  Indians ;  and  all  per- 
sons were  forbidden  to  carry  any  Indians  out  of  the  colony 
without  permission  of  the  government,  under  penalty  of 

£5.2 

As  a  special  measure  of  protection  against  internal  dis- 
turbances, the  general  assembly  of  Rhode  Island,  also, 
passed  an  act,  January  4,  1704,  forbidding,  under  penalty 
of  forfeiture,  the  importation  of  Indians  either  to  be  kept 
or  sold.  And  if  any  person  brought  Indians  into  the  colony 
and  set  them  at  liberty  under  the  pretense  of  bringing  them 
as  servants,  such  person  would  have  to  carry  such  Indians 
out  of  the  colony  at  his  own  expense.  If  the  person  im- 
porting Indians  failed  to  remove  them,  he  should  be  seized 
by  the  authorities  and  dealt  with  according  to  law,  as  should 
also  the  person  having  them  in  his  possession.3 

The  Indian  wars  in  the  southern  colonies  brought  the 
same  action  in  Rhode  Island  as  in  the  other  New  England 
colonies.  In  July  5,  1715,  an  act  was  passed  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  Indian  slaves.  The  preamble  of  the  act 
states  that  in  both  Rhode  Island  and  the  neighboring  colo- 
nies, "  conspiracies,  insurrections,  rapes,  thefts  and  other 
execrable  crimes "  had  been  perpetrated  by  the  Indian 
slaves,  "  and  the  increase  of  them  in  this  colony  daily  dis- 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  xiv,  p.  329. 

2  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
",  P.  550- 

8  Ib id.,  Hi,  p.  483. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [444 

courages  the  importing  of  white  servants  from  Great 
Britain,  etc.,  into  this  colony,  which  if  not  immediately 
remedied  may  prove  very  pernicious  and  troublesome  to 
this  government".  The  act,  therefore,  provided  that  within 
three  months  after  its  publication,  all  Indians,  male  or 
female,  of  whatever  age,  brought  by  land  or  sea,  from  any 
part  or  place,  to  be  disposed  of,  sold  or  left  within  the 
colony,  should  be  forfeited  to  his  majesty,  for  and  toward 
the  support  of  the  colony,  unless  the  person  who  brought 
in  such  Indian  or  Indians,  should  give  security  of  £50  per 
head  to  carry  them  out  within  the  period  of  one  month. 
All  masters  of  ships,  and  others  engaged  in  the  traffic,  were 
to  record  in  the  secretary's  office  within  twenty-four  hours 
after  arrival  the  names,  number  and  sex  of  the  Indians  and 
give  security  of  £50  per  head.  Failure  to  meet  this  require- 
ment was  to  be  punished  by  the  confiscation  of  the  In- 
dians.1 This  act  was  continued  in  force  and  was  reenacted 
in  the  Digest  of  Laws  in  1766. 

In  New  Hampshire  a  law  was  passed  in  1714  forbidding 
the  importation  or  bringing  into  the  province,  by  sea  or 
land,  of  any  male  or  female  Indian  to  be  used  as  a  servant 
or  a  slave.  This  was  done  because  of  the  fact  that  "  notor- 
ious crimes  or  enormities  have  of  late  been  perpetrated 
and  committed  by  Indians  or  other  slaves,  within  sev- 
eral of  her  Majesty's  plantations  in  America",  and  be- 
cause the  use  of  Indian  slaves  was  considered  "  a  dis- 
couragement to  Christian  servants  ".2  By  the  terms  of  the 
act,  "  Indians,  male  or  female,  of  what  age  soever,  that 
shall  be  imported  or  brought  into  this  province  by  sea  or 
land,  every  master  of  ship  or  other  vessel,  merchant  or 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
iv,  pp.  193-194. 

1  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1771,  p.  53;  edition  of  1726. 
p.  49;  Magazine  of  American  History,  xxi,  1889,  p.  62. 


445]          PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

person,  importing  or  bringing  into  this  province  such  In- 
dians, male  or  female,  shall  forfeit  to  her  Majesty,  for  the 
support  of  the  government,  the  sum  of  £10  per  head,  to  be 
sued  for  and  recovered  in  any  of  her  Majesty's  courts  of 
record,  ...  to  be  paid  into  the  treasury  for  the  use  of  the 
aforesaid  ".  The  occasion  for  this  act  was  the  same  as  that 
for  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1712,  namely,  the  bringing  of 
southern  Indian  slaves  to  the  northern  colonies.  The  in- 
fluence of  Massachusetts  is  readily  seen,  for  Indian  slaves 
could  not  have  been  so  numerous  as  to  have  been  a  serious 
menace  in  a  province  of  fewer  than  10,000  inhabitants.1 

A  part  of  the  small  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  the  colony 
of  New  York  came  through  the  process  of  trade.2  Indians 
from  the  Carolinas,  for  example,  were  sold  there.3  Since 
New  York  took  certain  legislative  action  regarding  other 
Indians  but  never  considered  the  importation  of  the  south- 
ern Indians,  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  number  imported 
during  the  southern  wars  was  never  sufficiently  large  to 
cause  any  concern  in  the  colony.  Probably  very  few,  if 
any,  came  into  the  colony  through  direct  trade  with  the 
Indians  themselves. 

Though  the  number  of  Indians  imported  into  Pennsyl- 
vania was  also  small,  it  was  large  enough  to  lead  to  legis- 
lation concerning  it.  January  12,  1706,  the  general  assem- 
bly passed  an  act  to  prevent  the  importation  of  Indian 
slaves  from  any  other  province  or  colony  of  America  after 
March  25,  1706.  The  preamble  of  the  act  stated  that  the 
importation  of  Indians  from  Carolina  and  other  places  had 
given  offense  to  the  Indians  of  the  province  and  caused 

1  McClintock,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  151. 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  xii,  p.  414. 

8  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  xii,  p.  280;  Bancroft  Papers 
relating  to  Carolina,  in  New  York  City  Public  Library,  MSS.,  vol.  i, 
1662-1769;  Thomas,  The  Indians  of  North  America,  etc.,  p.  95. 


194  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [446 

them  to  become  suspicious  and  dissatisfied.  Perhaps  a 
fellow  feeling,  or  perhaps  the  fear  that  the  custom  of  the 
whites  using  Indian  slaves  might  affect  their  liberty,  led 
the  Indians,  already  in  a  state  of  disturbance,  to  protest 
against  such  importation.  At  the  same  time,  the  act  de- 
clared "  that  no  such  Indian  slave,  as  deserting  his  master's 
service  elsewhere  shall  fly  into  this  province,  shall  be  un- 
derstood or  construed  to  be  comprehended  within  this  act." 
A  further  exception  was  made  in  the  case  of  those  slaves 
with  their  children  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year  before 
such  importation,  could  be  proved  to  have  been  menial  ser- 
vants in  the  family  of  the  importer.  Any  slave  brought 
into  the  province  contrary  to  this  law  was  declared  forfeited 
to  the  government,  and  was  to  be  set  free  or  otherwise  dis- 
posed of  according  to  the  will  of  the  governor  and  council.1 
The  law  of  1706  proved  to  be  inadequate.2  The  con- 
tinued importation  of  Indians  and  the  still  existing  fear  of 
having  ungovernable  and  dangerous  slaves  in  the  colony, 
led  to  the  passage  in  1712  of  a  second  act,  already  men- 
tioned, which  levied  a  duty  of  £20  on  every  negro  or 
Indian  imported.3  Masters  of  vessels  bringing  them  in 

1  Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania,  ii,  p.  236;  Pennsylvania  Colonial 
Records,  ii,  p.  213 ;  Bolles,  Pennsylvania,  Province  and  State,  ii,  p.  172. 

2  An  Indian  boy  was  said  to  have  been  impor'ed  into  the  colony  in 
1708  contrary  to  the  law.     The  matter  was  brought  before  the  coun- 
cil, September  14,  1709,  but  was  referred  for  lack  of  evidence.    Penn- 
sylvania Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  490.     It  was  perhaps  due  to  this  event 
that  the  council,  February  21,  1710,  decided  that  a  case  of  infringe- 
ment of  the  act  of  1706  should  be  tried  before  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas.     Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  508-509. 

8  This  was  the  first  effort  to  restrain  negro  slavery  in  Pennsylvania. 
It  was  introduced  into  the  assembly  in  the  form  of  a  petition  by 
William  Southeby,  a  resident  of  Maryland  and  a  Roman  Catholic. 
In  1696  he  wrote  papers  against  slavery.  For  a  sketch  of  his  life, 
see  the  article  by  Nathan  Kite  in  vol.  xxviii  of  The  Friend,  pp.  293, 
30i,  309. 


PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT:  TRADE 

were  required  to  state  their  number  and  the  name  of 
the  importer.  Any  negro  or  Indian  in  whose  case 
these  provisions  were  violated  was  to  be  seized  and 
sold  by  provincial  officers,  and  the  money  obtained 
from  their  sale  paid  to  the  treasurer  for  the  use  of 
the  government.  Duties  paid  upon  any  negro  or  Indian 
imported,  but  exported  again  within  twenty  days,  however, 
were  to  be  returned.  One  Samuel  Holt  was  appointed  to 
put  the  act  into  execution,  and  was  given  the  necessary 
powers  to  use  force,  if  necessary,  to  find  concealed  negroes 
and  Indians  whose  owners  had  not  complied  with  the  terms 
of  the  act,  and  to  dispose  in  public  sale  of  those  so  captured. 
Owners  could  bring  back  their  runaway  negro  or  Indian 
slaves,  and  "  gentlemen  and  strangers  "  traveling  in  the 
province  were  allowed  to  retain  their  negro  or  Indian 
slaves  for  a  time  not  exceeding  six  months.1  But  the  act 
was  not  put  into  operation,  for  it  was  repealed  by  the 
queen  in  council,  February  20, 


1  Laws   of  Pennsylvania   collected,   etc.,    1714,   p.    165;   Pennsylvania 
Colonial  Records,   ii,   pp.   550,   553;    Pennsylvania   Statutes  at  Large, 
ii»  P-  433  '•>  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  ii,  pp.  112,  114;  Pennsylvania  Historical 
Society  Memoirs,  i,  p.  389. 

2  Burge,   Commentaries  on   Colonial  and  Foreign   Laws,   \,   p.   737; 
Gordon,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  166. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT 

IT  sometimes  happened  that  the  Indians  sold  to  the  whites, 
for  a  specified  number  of  years,  members  of  their  own  tribe 
as  a  punishment  for  some  grievous  offense.1  Families 
sold  some  of  their  own  members  into  temporary  servi- 
tude to  obtain  money  or  other  necessities,2  or  an  individual 
Indian  offered  himself  or  his  children  as  security  for  loans, 
and,  on  failure  to  meet  the  obligations,  became  the  slaves 
of  the  creditors.3  Occasionally  an  outcast  or  disgraced  In- 
dian, having  lost  his  position  in  the  family  or  the  tribe,  sold 
himself  into  slavery  to  the  whites  in  order  to  escape  punish- 
ment at  the  hands  of  his  own  people  and  to  secure  future 
protection  for  himself. 

The  treachery  of  the  whites  in  refusing  to  give  up  the 
Indians  at  the  expiration  of  the  specified  term  of  service, 
and  the  selling  of  them  out  of  the  country,  caused  consid- 
erable disturbance  among  the  Indians  in  several  colonies. 

1  Lawson,  The  History  of  North  Carolina,  p.  351,  tells  of  Indians 
selling  an  Indian  thief  to  the  governor. 

3  Livermore,  A  History  of  Block  Island,  p.  60,  mentions  an  instance 
of  an  Indian  sold  by  his  brothers  for  ten  gallons  of  rum;  and  a  second 
instance  when  another  Indian  was  sold  by  his  brothers  and  sisters 
for  a  term  of  thirteen  years,  for  thirty  gallons  of  rum  and  four 
cloth  coats,  the  rum  to  be  paid  in  annual  instalments  of  one  gallon 
each.  The  Indian  was  to  have  his  board  and  clothing  and  two  suits 
of  apparel  at  the  expiration  of  his  bondage.  Ibid.,  p.  60. 

3  Green,  Springfield,  etc.,  p.  153,  quotes  a  deed  for  land,  1665,  in 
which  an  Indian  girl  is  given  by  her  parents  as  security  for  payment. 
196  [448 


449]          OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  197 

In  1660,  a  company  of  English  from  Massachusetts  settled 
on  Old  Town  Creek  at  its  junction  with  Cape  Fear  River 
in  the  present  North  Carolina.  The  settlement  was  short 
lived,  lasting  something  less  than  three  years.  One  reason 
why  the  settlers  left  was  the  hostile  attitude  of  neighbor- 
ing Indians  who  believed  that  the  white  men  had  shipped 
off  as  slaves  some  of  the  Indian  children  who  had  been  en- 
trusted to  their  care,  under  the  pretext  of  sending  them 
north  to  be  educated.1  Though  the  charge  has  never  been 
substantiated,  it  seems  probable  that  it  was  not  without 
cause.  The  lax  state  of  morals  among  the  early  settlers 
would  permit  the  kidnapping  of  Indians  to  be  practiced  by 
this  little  settlement  as  well  as  elsewhere.  But  whether 
the  settlers  were  guilty  or  not  on  this  particular  occasion, 
the  incident  throws  a  certain  light  on  the  custom  of  the 
times  through  the  fear  which  the  Indians  showed  of  such 
treatment.2  Evidently  the  practice  continued  in  North 
Carolina,  for  one  of  the  grievances  of  the  Tuscarora  In- 
dians at  the  breaking  out  of  the  Tuscarora  War  was  that 
their  children  who  had  been  bound  out  for  a  limited  time 
in  English  families,  were,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
agreement,  transported  to  other  plantations  and  sold  as 
slaves.8 

Virginia  was  always  comparatively  lenient  in  her  treat- 
ment of  the  Indians.  Accordingly,  its  early  legislation  dealt 
with  the  matter  of  unjustly  forcing  Indians  into  slavery. 
In  1655,  provision  was  made  that  Indian  children  could  be- 
come indentured  servants  only  by  consent  of  their  parents 
and  for  specified  terms  agreed  upon,  and  such  children  were 

1  Williamson,    The   History   of  North   Carolina,   i,   p.   95 ;    Lawson, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  73,  74;  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  second  edition, 
»,  P.  73- 

2  Williamson,  op.  cit.,  p.  95. 

8  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  p.  433. 


I98  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [450 

to  be  educated  in  the  Christian  religion.1  The  following 
year,  1656,  it  was  provided  that  Indian  children  brought 
into  the  colony  as  hostages  should  be  assigned  to  masters 
by  choice  of  their  parents,  but  should  not  be  made 
slaves.2  Again,  in  1658,  it  was  decreed  that  any  Indian 
children  disposed  of  by  their  parents  to  a  white  man  for 
"education  and  instruction  in  the  Christian  religion",  or 
for  any  other  purpose,  were  not  to  be  turned  over  to 
any  other  person  upon  any  pretext  whatever,  and  any 
such  child  was  to  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five.3  The 
fact  that  the  legislation  on  the  subject  was  repeated  at  such 
short  intervals  affords  evidence  of  the  continuance  of  the 
custom  which  it  was  intended  to  abolish.  A  letter  of  Gov- 
ernor Spots  wood  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  March  n,  1711,  re- 
garding the  Indian  college,  tells  of  his  attempt  to  persuade 
Indians  to  allow  their  children  to  attend  the  college  by  re- 
mitting their  annual  tribute  of  skins,  and  declares  that 
"they  were  a  little  shy  of  yielding  to  his  proposal,  and  urged 
the  breach  of  a  former  contract  made  long  ago  by  this  gov- 
ernment, when  instead  of  their  children  receiving  the 
promised  education,  they  were  transported,  as  they  say,  to 
other  countries  and  sold  as  slaves  ".4 

Massachusetts  sought  to  control  the  custom  of  the  In- 
dians in  apprenticing  themselves  and  their  children  to  the 
whites  and  the  consequent  abuse  of  the  practice,  by  enacting, 
in  1700,  a  law  requiring  the  consent  of  two  or  more  justices 
of  the  peace  to  such  a  proceeding,  so  as  to  make  sure  that 
the  terms  of  the  agreement  were  reasonable.  The  justices 
of  the  regular  courts  were  empowered  to  hear  the  com- 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  410. 

2  Ibid.,  i,  p.  396. 
8  Ibid.,  i,  p.  455. 

4  Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections,  new  series,  i,  p.  125.     (This 
probably  refers  to  the  act  of   1666). 


45 1  ]          0  THER  PRO  CESSES  OF  EN  SLA  VEMENT  1 99 

plaint  of  an  Indian  with  regard  to  any  indenture  or  ap- 
prenticeship, and  to  settle  the  matter.1  Similar  acts  were 
passed  in  1718  2  and  1725. s  The  latter  act  provided  a  heavy 
fine  for  taking  any  children  beyond  the  seas  without  due 
legal  sanction,  and  further  decreed  that  any  indenture  then 
existing  of  an  adult  Indian  should  be  good  for  no  longer 
than  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  law, 
except  by  legal  approval  as  specified  in  the  law.  In  1763, 
another  act,  to  continue  as  law  for  three  years,  was  passed, 
forbidding  any  Marshpee  Indian  to  bind  out  his  or  her 
child  or  children  to  any  English  person  whatsoever  by  in- 
denture or  any  other  way,  in  satisfaction  of  or  as  security 
for  a  debt,  without  the  consent  of  the  major  part  of  the 
overseers,  and  declaring  that  every  indenture  or  any  in- 
strument whatever,  or  oral  agreement  whereby  such 
child  or  children  should  be  bound  out  contrary  to  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act,  should  be  adjudged  null  and 
void.4 

Rhode  Island,  also,  for  the  same  purpose  of  preventing 
the  conversion  of  apprenticeship  into  actual  slavery,  passed 
an  act,  June  15,  1730,  requiring  the  assent  of  two  justices 
to  any  bond  of  apprenticeship  to  which  the  Indians  were 
parties.5  If  the  Indian  captives  disposed  of  for  periods  of 

1  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  436. 

1  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  104. 

1  Ibid.,  ii,  364.  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  ii,  p.  30,  points 
out  that  the  expression  in  the  Massachusetts  Body  of  Liberties, 
"  willingly  sell  themselves,"  related  to  such  as  contracted  to  labor  for 
a  term  of  years,  though  in  some  cases,  such  term  might  have  been 
for  life.  The  engagement,  whatever  its  duration,  would  be  subject  to 
transference  to  a  third  party,  in  which  case  the  original  contractor 
would  be  "  sold." 

4  Acts  and  Resolves,  iv,  p.  641. 

5  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  ii, 
p.  101 ;  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections,  vii,  p.  232. 


200  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [452 

years  by  Rhode  Island  at  the  close  of  King  Philip's 
War  are  to  be  considered  as  involuntary  indentured  ser- 
vants, then  such  abuses  as  the  law  of  1730  were  intended  to 
remedy  existed  with  reference  to  those  captives.  By  the 
terms  of  their  disposal  they  were  to  be  free  after  a  tempo- 
rary period  of  service.  But  the  colonists  sometimes  con- 
tinued to  hold  them  in  servitude  after  the  specified  term 
had  expired.  Furthermore,  though  no  provision  for  such 
action  was  made  by  the  colonial  government,  the  masters 
of  these  servants  held  as  slaves  the  children  born  of  these 
Indians  while  in  servitude.1 

Conditions  in  New  York  in  the  eighteenth  century  serve 
to  illustrate  the  same  point.  In  July,  1715,  Colonel  Heath- 
cote  wrote  home  to  Secretary  Townsend :  "  The  Indians 
complain  that  their  children,  who  were  many  of  them  bound 
out  for  a  limited  time  to  be  taught  and  instructed  by  the 
Christians,  were,  contrary  to  the  intent  of  their  agreement, 
transferred  to  other  plantations  and  sold  for  slaves,  and  I 
don't  know  but  there  may  be  some  truth  in  what  they 
allege  ".2  The  authorities  were  aware  of  the  danger  caused 
by  the  colonists'  action,  and  in  1750  Governor  Clinton  or- 
dered  all  Indian  children  held  as  pledges  or  slaves,  to  be 
returned  to  their  families.3  Johnson,  the  Indian  commis- 
sioner, was  much  pleased  with  the  governor's  action  and 
January  22,  1750,  wrote  him:  "  I  am  very  glad  that  your 
excellency  has  given  orders  to  have  the  Indian  children  re- 
turned, who  are  kept  by  the  traders  as  pawns  or  pledges 
as  they  call  it,  but  rather  stolen  from  them  (as  the  parents 
came  at  the  appointed  time  to  redeem  them,  but  they  sent 
them  away  before  hand),  and  as  they  were  children  of  our 

1  Early  Records  of  the  Town  of  Providence,  xvi,  p.  244.     Weeden, 
Early  Rhode  Island,  p.  173,  mentions  such  slaves  in  1750. 

2  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  p.  433. 
8  Ibid.,  vi,  546. 


453]          OTHER'PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  2Ql 

Friends  and  Allies,  and  if  they  are  not  returned  next 
Spring,  it  will  confirm  what  the  French  told  the  Six  Na- 
tions (viz.)  :  that  we  looked  upon  them  as  slaves  or  negroes, 
which  affair  gave  me  a  great  deal  of  trouble  at  that  time  to 
reconcile  ".  Evidently  the  holders  were  disinclined  to  obey 
the  governor's  order,  for  Johnson  cited  in  his  letter  two 
cases  where  such  return  had  not  been  made,  and  from  which 
he  feared  disturbance.1  To  what  extent  the  governor's 
decree  was  effective  would'  be  hard  to  state.  There  cer- 
tainly were  Indian  slaves  in  the  colony  after  its  publication. 
"  A  list  of  the  Negro,  Indian  and  Mulatto  Slaves  within  the 
district  whereof  Benjamin  Smith  is  Captain  at  Hempstead 
in  Queens  County  taken  the  first  day  of  April,  1755," 
shows  that  Indian  slaves  were  being  used  on  Long  Island 
at  that  date,2  and  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  some  of  them 
might  have  been  obtained  by  abuse  of  indenture. 

Another  process  of  enslaving  Indians  was  that  which 
had  to  do  with  the  infliction  of  punishment  for  offenses 
against  law  and  order.  The  custom  of  sentencing  Indians 
to  enslavement  at  home,  or  to  transportation  and  enslave- 
ment abroad,  for  such  offenses  was  general  throughout  the 
colonies.  Such  a  sentence  came  about  in  one  of  two  ways : 
either  the  colonial  legislature  enacted  a  law  which  imposed 
enslavement  as  the  punishment  for  a  given  offense;  or  a 
colonial  court  acting  on  its  own  initiative  used  it  to  that  end. 

In  South  Carolina,  even  after  the  wholesale  deportation 
of  captive  and  kidnapped  Indians  for  slaves  had  practically 
ceased,  natives  were  sometimes  sentenced  to  slavery  by  the 
assembly  as  punishment  for  crime  of  which  the  accused 
was  convicted  or  suspected.  Such  an  instance  occurred, 
May  29,  1725,  when  it  was  "  Ordered  that  Colonel  Alex- 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vi,  p.  546. 

1  List  given  in  Ross,  History  of  Long  Island,  i,  p.  125. 


202  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [454 

rmder  Parris,  Public  Receiver,  do  forthwith  sell  the  Indian 
now  in  jail  for  the  supposed  murder  of  a  white  man  to  the 
northward  of  the  province,  in  order  that  he  may  be  trans- 
ferred to  Bermuda,  Jamaica  or  Barbadoes,  or  some  other 
cf  the  West  India  Islands."1  Again  on  May  31,  1732, 
"  His  Excellency  having  asked  the  advice  of  the  Council  in 
relation  to  an  Indian  delivered  up  by  her  own  nation,  now 
in  jail  of  this  town,  on  suspicion  of  having  murdered  an 
Indian  trader;  it  is  resolved,  that  as  it  could  not  be  fully 
proved  that  she  was  the  person  that  murdered  the  said  In- 
dian trader,  but  strong  presumptions  appearing  ordered 
that  Colonel  Parris  cause  her  to  be  transported  and  sold, 
for  the  use  of  the  Publick."  2  A  similar  instance  occurred 
in  Massachusetts  in  1666  when  the  general  court  sentenced 
a  Pequot  to  slavery  for  life  as  punishment  for  the  murder 
of  a  white  colonist  by  the  Indians.3 

In  Virginia,  as  a  measure  of  protection  to  property 
rights  upon  a  complaint  of  damages  committed  by  Indians, 
the  assembly  voted  in  1660  that  the  plaintiff  in  the  case  be 
given  the  right,  provided  satisfaction  were  not  made,  to 
sell  as  many  Indians  out  of  the  country  as  the  court  might 
prescribe.4  Another  act  of  similar  character  was  passed  in 
1722  after  the  treaty  of  Albany,  when  the  assembly  voted 
that  no  Virginia  Indian  should  cross  the  Potomac  River, 
and  that  none  of  the  Five  Nations  or  their  allies  should  go 
beyond  that  boundary.  Any  offenders  were  to  be  punished 

1  Rivers,  Topics  in  the  History  of  South  Carolina,  p.  51. 

2  Ibid ,  p.  51.     It  will  be  noted  that  in  boh  the  South  Carolina  cases 
cited,  the  sentence  of  transportation  and  slavery  was  passed  before 
the  Indians  concerned  were  proved  guilty  of  the  charges  against  them. 

3  Winthrop,  Journal,  Savage  edi  ion,  i,  p.  233  (editor's  note)  ;    Hildreth, 
A  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Discovery  of  the  Continent, 
etc.,  i,  p.  239.. 

4  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  15. 


455]          OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  203 

by  death,  or  be  transported  and  sold  as  slaves.1  In  Massa- 
chusetts, also,  the  question  of  runaway  slaves  who  sought 
refuge  among  the  Indians,  led  the  general  court,  June  2, 
1641,  to  pass  an  order  by  which  it  was  declared  to  be  the 
mind  of  the  court  "  that  if  the  Indians  send  not  back  our 
runaways,  then,  by  commission  of  the  governor  and  any 
three  of  the  magistrates,  to  send  and  take  so  many  as  to 
satisfy  for  the  want  of  them  and  for  the  charge  of  send- 
ing for  them  ".2  The  order,  like  that  of  the  Virginia  legis- 
lature, meant  that  any  master  might  be  authorized  to  right 
himself  upon  the  Indians  for  wrong  done  him  by  them. 

Not  only  the  higher  courts,  but  the  lower  courts  as  well, 
were  accustomed  to  make  use  of  this  form  of  punishment. 
In  1678,  the  court  of  Sandwich,  Plymouth,  directed  that 
three  Indians  convicted  of  breaking  open  a  house  and  steal- 
ing therefrom,  should  be  perpetual  slaves,  and  empowered 
the  owner  of  the  house  and  stolen  property  to  "  make  sale 
of  them  in  New  England  or  elsewhere,  as  his  lawful  slaves, 
for  the  term  of  their  lives."  3 

Their  love  of  strong  drink  not  infrequently  led  the  In- 
dians into  temporary  servitude,  and  served  as  a  means  by 
which  the  colonists,  if  so  minded,  could  force  them  into 
that  condition.  On  one  occasion  Boston  was  building  a 
fort  on  an  island  in  the  harbor.  Wages  were  high  and 
economy  was  desirable.  The  general  court,  therefore,  or- 
dered that  for  drunkenness  the  Indians  should  not  be 
whipped,  but  sent  to  this  island  to  work  for  ten  days.  The 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  iv,  p.  104;  Historical  Documents  from  the  Old 
Dominion,  No.  3,  p.  258.  The  governor  and  counc  1,  without  a  jury, 
were  to  act  as  a  court  for  the  trial  of  such  offenders. 

3  Shurtleff,  Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  in  New  England,  i,  p.  329. 

8  Freeman,  The  History  of  Cape  Cod,  ii,  p.  72 ;  Thacher,  History  of 
the  Town  of  Plymouth,  p.  149. 


204  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [456 

Indians  protested  and  preferred  whipping  as  punishment, 
but  their  complaint  received  no  attention.1 

On  March  8,  1683,  the  Plymouth  general  court  decreed 
that  a  certain  Indian  should  serve  as  a  slave  for  a  specified 
time  because  of  a  judgment  against  him.2  At  a  council 
held  in  Boston,  also,  June  14,  1686,  upon  notification  of  the 
keeper  of  the  prison  that  a  sentence  of  transportation  of  an 
Indian  had  not  been  carried  into  effect,  the  treasurer  was 
ordered  to  sell  the  Indian  for  a  period  not  exceeding  seven 
years  in  satisfaction  of  the  judgment  against  him.3  The 
Massachusetts  council  records  of  January  18,  1695,  tell  of 
an  Indian  accused  of  "  corresponding  with  and  adhering 
to  the  Indian  enemy  "  who  was  transported  and  sold  for 
the  offense.4  A  similar  instance  occurred  in  1696,  when  an 
Indian  was  condemned  "  to  be  transported  beyond  the 
seas  as  a  dangerous  person  and  sold".5  On  December  i, 
1705,  the  Massachusetts  deputies  sent  in  a  bill  providing 
that  fornication  or  marriage  of  white  men  with  negroes 
or  Indians  should  be  punished  by  selling  the  colored  of- 
fenders out  of  the  colony  as  slaves.  Through  the  inter- 
cession of  Samuel  Sewall,  the  Indians  were  dropped  from 
the  bill  which  was  then  passed  as  applying  to  blacks  and 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  ix,  p.  307 ;  Cook,  Drutn- 
mond  Island,  p.  70.  To  retain  their  services  for  a  time  longer  than 
that  specified  in  the  sentence  of  the  court,  the  whites  were  accustomed 
on  the  ninth  day  to  furnish  the  Indians  with  rum  and  get  them  drunk 
so  that  they  must  remain  ten  days  longer.  The  practice  was  so  long 
con'inued  that  at  one  time  there  was  several  hundreds  of  Indians  on 
the  island,  "many  whereof  had  been  by  the  practices  aforesaid  kept 
about  three  months." 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  vi,  p.  104. 

*  Manuscript  Council  Records  of  Massachusetts,  ii,  p.  40;  Laws  of 
New  Hampshire,  Provincial  Period,  i,  p.  116. 

4  Manuscript  Council  Records  of  Massachusetts,  ii,  p.  310. 
'Freeman,  The  History  of  Cape  Cod,  i,  p.  714. 


457]          OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  205 

mulattoes.1  The  records  mention  other  instances  in  1713  * 
and  1 776s  when  Indians  were  sold  as  punishment  for 
crime,  the  latter  case  being  one  of  theft.  An  incident  oc- 
curred in  1721  when  the  sentence  of  an  Indian  imprisoned 
in  Boston  was  changed  from  imprisonment  to  a  term  of 
servitude.4  Another  Indian,  in  1727,  was  sold  for  a  term  of 
years  to  a  resident  of  the  colony  to  serve  a  sentence  for 
debt.5  In  1739,  on  petition  of  the  sheriff  of  Barnstaple 
county,  the  Massachusetts  general  court  impowered  the  jus- 
tices of  that  county  to  sell  an  Indian  prisoner  convicted  of 
manslaughter  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  "  to  any  of 
his  majesty's  good  subjects  for  a  term  not  exceeding  ten 
years,  for  the  most  he  will  fetch  ",  in  order  to  get  money  to 
pay  the  cost  of  prosecuting  the  prisoner  and  the  charges 
of  his  imprisonment.6 

The  Indians  of  Rhode  Island  gave  much  trouble  by  steal- 
ing the  goods  and  cattle  of  the  colonists.  To  prevent  it, 
a  law  was  passed,  1659,  to  the  effect  that,  if  the  damage 
exceeded  twenty  shillings,  the  convict  might  be  sold  as  a 
slave  to  any  English  plantation  abroad  unless  he  made  res- 
titution.7 Instances  are  not  lacking  in  which  the  law  of 
1659  was  put  mto  effect.  On  one  occasion  (between  1671 

1  Sewall's   Diary,    in    Massachusetts    Historical    Society    Collections, 
series  5,  vi,  p.  143. 

2  Manuscript  Council  Records  of  Massachusetts,  viii,  No.  169. 

3  Ibid.,  ccxxxii,  No.  i. 

4  Boston  Public  Library  Monthly  Bulletin,  vii,  February,  1902,  p.  74. 
This   Indian  was   stolen   from  his   owner  by  pirates   and   carried  to 
South  Carolina,  but  escaped  and  returned  to  New  England.     He  was 
about  to  return  to  his  master  to  serve  out  his  term  of  servitude  when 
he   was    seized   by   two    white   men    of    Massachusetts    and    enslaved 
by  them. 

5  Manuscript  Council  Records  of  Massachusetts,  xxxi,  No.  148. 

6  Acts  and  Resolves,  xii,  p.  602. 

7  Arnold,   History   of   the   State   of   Rhode   Island   and   Providence 
Plantations,  i,  p.  271. 


206  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [458 

and  1685)  an  Indian  convicted  of  breaking  into  a  house 
and  of  beating  and  wounding  a  servant,  was  sentenced  to 
pay  a  fine,  or,  if  payment  were  not  made  in  three  months, 
to  be  sold  as  a  slave  in  Barbadoes.1  In  1676,  the  general 
court  provided  that  all  Indians  who  should  come  upon  any 
island  in  the  bay,  must  have  written  permission  so  to  do 
from  the  committee  appointed  to  dispose  of  Indians,  with- 
out which  they  would  be  liable  to  be  sold  into  servitude.2 

The  first  code  of  Connecticut  laws,  1650,  followed  the 
Massachusetts  Body  of  Liberties  in  authorizing  enslave- 
ment as  a  mode  of  punishment.3  In  1650,  certain  Indians 
who  failed  to  make  satisfaction  for  injuries  were  ordered 
to  be  seized  and  delivered  to  the  injured  party,  "  either  to 
serve  or  to  be  shipped  out  ...  as  the  case  will  justly 
bear  ".4  In  1660,  the  general  court  was  empowered  by  the 
United  Colonies  to  send  a  company  of  men  to  obtain  satis- 
faction from  the  Narraganset  for  certain  depredations  upon 
the  settlers.  Four  of  the  guilty  Indians  were  to  be  de- 
manded and  sent  to  Barbadoes  to  be  sold  as  slaves.5 

Not  only  did  the  New  England  colonies  take  sep- 
arately such  legislative  action  regarding  the  enslave- 
ment of  Indians,  but  Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Con- 
necticut, and  New  Haven  acting  together  as  the  New 
England  Confederation,  took  similar  action.  Alleged 
trespassing  of  Indians  upon  English  territory,  and  the 

1  Durfee,  Gleanings  from  the  Judicial  History  of  Rhode  Island,  p. 
131,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  Tracts,  No.  18. 
3  Arnold,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  423. 

3  The  code  provided  that,  in  case  an  Indian  should  fail  to  give  the 
satisfaction  required  in  case  of  convic  ion,  the  court  might  sentence 
him  to  serve  the  injured  party  as  a  slave,  or  to  be  shipped  out  of  the 
country  in   exchange   for  negroes.     Connecticut   Colonial   Records,   i, 
P    S3*- 

4  Hildreth,  The  Plistory  of  the  United  States,  i,  p.  372. 

B  Orcutt,  The  History  of  the  old  Town  of  Derby,  Connecticut,  p.  Ivii. 


459]          OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  207 

fear  of  a  Narraganset  war,  led  the  United  Colonies, 
in  1646,  to  pass  an  order  authorizing,  upon  complaint 
of  trespass  by  Indians,  the  seizure  of  any  of  them 
who  should  "  entertain,  protect  or  rescue  the  offender  ". 
"  And  because  it  will  be  chargeable  keeping  Indians  in 
prison,  and  if  they  should  escape,  they  are  like  to  prove 
more  insolent  and  dangerous  after,  that  upon  such  seizure, 
the  delinquent  or  satisfaction  be  demanded  of  the  saga- 
more or  plantation  of  Indians  guilty  or  accessory  as  before, 
and  if  it  be  denied,  that  the  magistrates  of  the  jurisdiction 
deliver  up  the  Indians  seized  to  the  party  or  parties  in- 
damaged,  either  to  serve  or  to  be  shipped  out  in  exchange 
for  negroes  as  the  case  will  justly  bear."  The  commis- 
sioners agreed  that  this  measure,  though  just,  was  severe, 
and  that  it  might  lead  to  the  Indians  seizing  the  English 
in  return;  but  they  could  see  no  better  means  of  preserv- 
ing the  peace  of  the  colony.  As  a  measure  of  fairness, 
therefore,  they  decreed  that  before  any  seizure  of  Indians 
was  made,  a  copy  of  the  declaration  should  be  published 
and  given  to  the  particular  sagamore.  Copies  were  accord- 
ingly given  to  four  leading  sachems.1 

kA   further  process  of  enslavement  was  connected  with 
jiestions  of  birth.     By  the  recognized  common  law  of  na- 
ons,  the  civil  law.  and  the  Jewish  law,  the  children  of  a 
ave  mother  became  at  birth  the  property  of  the  mother's 
uvvner.     Nobody  thought  of  the  children  of  slaves  being 
free.    Yet,  to  make  certainty  doubly  sure,  the  colonial  laws 
from  time  to  time  considered  the  matter  and  declared  the 
common  law  a  pa-t  of  colonial  legislation.2     South  Caro- 
lina, for  example,  by  an  act  of  1712, 3  repeated  in  1722,* 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  ix,  p.  71 ;  Connecticut  Colonial  Records, 
i,  P-  532. 

2  Moore's  article  in  Historical  Magazine,  x,  p.  189. 

3  The  Statutes  at  La^e  af  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  352. 

4  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  371. 


208  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [460 

and  I735,1  declared  that,  with  the  exception  of  certain  in- 
dividuals freed  by  the  government,  "  all  negroes,  mulattoes, 
mustizoes,  or  Indians  which  at  any  time  heretofore  have 
been  sold,  or  now  are  held  or  taken  to  be,  or  hereafter  shall 
be  bought  and  sold  as  slaves,  are  hereby  declared  slaves; 
and  they  and  their  children,  are  hereby  made  and  declared 
slaves  to  all  intents  and  purposes."  Another  act  of  1740, 
though  worded  differently,  decreed  a  similar  condition  for 
the  children  of  negro,  mulatto,  mustee  and  Indian  slave 
mothers.2  In  1705,  Virginia  similarly  declared  £11  children 
bond  or  free  according  to  the  condition  of  their  mothers ;  * 
and,  in  1723,  decreed  that  children  of  female  mulattoes  or 
Indians  obliged  by  law  to  serve  till  the  age  of  thirty  or 
thirty-one  should  serve  the  master  or  mistress  of  such 
mulatto  or  Indian  until  they  should  attain  the  same  age  as 
that  up  to  which  the  mother  was  obliged  by  law  to  serve.4 

A  Maryland  act  of  1663  differs  from  the  acts  just  men- 
tioned by  stating  that  "  all  children  born  of  any  negro  or 
other  slave,  shall  be  slaves  as  their  fathers  were  for  the 
term  of  their  lives."  Another  section  of  this  same  act  pro- 
vides that  "  whatsoever  freeborn  woman  shall  intermarry 
with  any  slave,  from  and  after  the  last  day  of  the  present 
assembly,  shall  serve  the  master  of  such  slave  during  the 
life  of  her  husband;  and  that  all  the  issue  of  such  free- 
born  woman,  so  married,  shall  be  slaves  as  their  fathers 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  385. 

1  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  397.  The  act  decreed  that  "  all  negroes  and  Indians 
(free  Indians  in  amity  with  this  government,  and  negroes,  mulat'oes, 
mustizoes,  who  are  now  free,  excepted),  mulattoes  or  mustizoes  who 
now  are  or  shall  hereafter  be,  in  this  Province,  and  all  their  issue  and 
offspring,  born  or  to  be  born,  shall  be,  and  they  are  hereby  declared 
to  be,  and  remain  forever  hereafter,  absolute  slaves  and  shall  follow 
the  condition  of  the  mother." 

8  Hening,  op.  cit.,  in,  p.  460. 

*  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  133. 


461]          OTHER  PROCESSES  OF  ENSLAVEMENT  209 

were."  x  Though  the  law  was  of  brief  duration,  persons 
born  of  the  union  between  slaves  and  free  white  women, 
and  the  descendants  of  such  persons,  were  held  in  slavery 
down  to  1791,  when  the  highest  court  of  the  state  decided 
that  for  want  of  proof  concerning  the  white  woman  who- 
originally  married  a  slave,  her  descendants  were  not  slaves, 
and  could  not  be  legally  held  as  such.2  A  later  Maryland 
act,  June  2,  1692,  provided  that  all  children  born  or  there- 
after to  be  born  of  slaves  within  the  province  were  to  be 
slaves  for  the  term  of  their  natural  lives.3  Nothing  is  said 
in  the  act  of  children  one  of  whose  parents  was  free.  The 
act  was  repealed  in  1715.*  New  York,  on  its  own  part,  in 
1706,  decreed  that  any  negro,  Indian,  mulatto  or  mustee 
child  should  follow  the  condition  of  the  mother  and  be 
esteemed  a  slave  "to  all  intents  and  purposes  whatsoever."  5 
Frequent  incidental  mention,  also,  is  found  in  the  docu- 
ments of  the  time  and  in  newspaper  advertisements  to 
slaves  "  born  in  the  house  ".6 

1  Stroud,  A  Sketch  of  the  Laws  relating  to  Slavery,  etc.,  p.  2. 

1  Ibid. 

1  Archives  of  Maryland,  xiii,  p.  546. 

4  Maxcy,   The  Laws  of  Maryland,   etc.,  i,  p.   115;   Bacon;  Laws  of 
Maryland. 

5  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York,  edition  of  1894,  i,  p.  598;  Trott,  Laws 
of  the  British  Plantations  in  America,  etc.,  p.  273. 

•  Moore,  in  Historical  Magazine,  x,  p.  189.  The  Reverend  John 
Davenport,  in  a  letter  to  the  younger  Winthrop,  June,  1666,  spoke 
of  the  baptism  of  slaves  "  born  in  the  house."  Historical  Magazine, 
x,  p.  59-  The  instance  of  Mr.  Maverick  of  Noddle's  Island  attempting 
to  breed  slaves  is  another  example  of  the  general  custom  of  the  time 
of  holding  the  children  of  slave  women  as  slaves.  Littleton  v.  Tuttle, 
in  Massachusetts  Reports,  iv,  p.  128;  Gushing,  Reports,  x,  p.  410.  Felt, 
in  Statistical  Association  Collections,  i,  p.  586.  Palfrey,  History  of 
New  England,  ii,  p.  30,  states  that  no  person  was  ever  born  into  legal 
slavery  in  Massachusetts.  See  also  Moore,  Notes  on  the  History  of 
Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  pp.  24-25,  and  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  18-19. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [462 

Certain  judicial  decisions  rendered  in  the  trial  of  cases  in 
federal  and  state  courts,  finally,  offer  clear  indication  as  to 
the  legality  of  holding  in  slavery  the  children  of  Indian 
slave  mothers.1  Of  these  decisions  the  one  rendered  by  the 
Virginia  court  of  appeals  in  1831  is  particularly  instructive. 
In  part  it  runs  as  follows :  "  I  cannot  for  a  moment  doubt 
the  propriety  of  the  former  decisions  of  this  court,  and  of 
the  instructions  under  consideration,  that  proof  that  a  party 
is  descended  in  the  female  line  from  an  Indian  woman,  and 
especially  a  native  American,  without  anything  more  is 
prima  facie  proof  of  his  right  to  freedom  liable  to  be  re- 
pelled by  proof  that  his  race  has  been  immemorially  held 
in  slavery;  which  may  be  in  turn  rebutted  by  the  consid- 
eration of  the  ignorance  and  helpless  condition  of  persons 
in  that  situation,  aided  by  other  circumstances,  such  as  that 
many  such  were  bound  by  law  to  a  service  equivalent,  in 
all  respects,  to  a  state  of  temporary  slavery,  until  they  at- 
tained the  age  of  thirty-one  years;  and  in  many  cases  (ac- 
cording to  circumstances  existing  in  almost  every  case)  for 
an  uncertain  term  beyond  that  age."  2 

1  Pirate  v.  Dalby,  1786  (Pennsylvania),  in  i  Dallas,  second  edition, 
p.  167;  Wilson  et  al.  v.  Hinkley  et  al.,  1787  (Connecticut),  in  Kirby, 
p.  202;  The  State  v.  Van  Waggoner,  1797  (New  Jersey),  in  i  Halstead, 
P-  3741  Jenkins  v.  Tom,    1792    (Virginia),  in   i    Washington,  p.    123; 
Coleman  v.  Dick,  1793  (Virginia),  in  i  Washington,  p.  233;  Hudgins  v. 
Wright,   1806   (Virginia),  in  i  Hening  and  Munford,  second  edition, 
p.  134;  Pallas  et  al.  v.  Hill  et  al.,  1807   (Virginia),  in  2  Hening  and 
Munford,  second  edition,  p.   149;  Gregory  v.  Baugh,  1831    (Virginia), 
in  2  Leigh,  p.  665. 

2  Wheeler,  op.  cit.,  p.  20;  2  Leigh,  p.  665. 


CHAPTER  IX 

PROPERTY  RELATIONS 

THOUGH  the  practices  connected  with  the  institution  of 
negro  and  Indian  slavery  in  the  Spanish  colonies  were 
known  to  the  English  colonists,  yet  at  first  the  latter  did  not 
see  fit  to  impose  the  status  of  slavery  upon  the  Indians 
brought  into  the  colonies  by  way  of  trade  with  the  Spanish 
islands  or  otherwise,  but  were  content  to  retain  possession 
of  the  services  of  their  subject  Indians  without  taking  pos- 
session of  their  persons  through  legal  declarations  impos- 
ing the  status  of  slavery  upon  them.1  Such  Indians  were 
held  in  the  status  of  servitude,  a  condition  which  stood 
44  midway  between  freedom  and  absolute  subjection  ",  and 
which  was  the  "  historic  base  upon  which  slavery,  by  the 
extension  and  addition  of  incidents,  was  constructed."  2 
The  right  of  ownership  of  the  services  of  both  negroes  and 
Indians  was,  after  all,  what  the  colonists  most  desired,  and 
appeared  to  promise  satisfaction  in  this  instance  as  it  had 
in  the  case  of  the  white  indentured  servants.  Indian  ser- 
vitude not  only  preceded  Indian  slavery,  but  even  con- 
tinued after  the  institution  of  slavery  was  fully  developed. 
This  is  true  of  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  English-American 
colonies.  It  is  certainly  true  of  Maryland,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  Georgia,  North  Carolina  and 
South  Carolina.  Statutory  recognition  of  slavery  in  gen- 
eral by  the  English-American  colonies  occurred  as  follows : 

1  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  31. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  31-32. 

211 


212  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [464 

by  Massachusetts  in  1641 ;  by  Connecticut  in  1650;  by  Vir- 
ginia in  1 66 1 ;  by  Maryland  in  1663;  by  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  in  1664;  by  South  Carolina  in  1682;  by  Penn- 
sylvania and  Rhode  Island  in  1700;  by  North  Carolina  in 
1715 ;  and  by  Georgia  in  I755-1  But  the  legislation  of  these 
dates  did  not  always  include  the  subject  Indians.  When 
such  was  the  case,  however,  according  to  a  strict  legal  inter- 
pretation, any  subject  Indian,  if  enslaved,  had  the  right  to 
demand  his  freedom  from  the  colonial  courts.  Such  an 
instance  existed  in  the  case  of  Virginia  where  the  acts  of 
1655  and  1 66 1  specifically  forbade  Indian  slavery  and  guar- 
anteed to  the  subject  Indians  all  the  rights  of  servants.2 

The  recognition  of  Indian  as  well  as  negro  slavery  by 
customary  law  came  somewhat  earlier  than  by  statute  law. 
With  the  extension  of  the  period  of  servitude  to  a  life  term, 
the  change  from  servitude  to  slavery  was  practically  com- 
pleted so  far  as  customary  law  was  concerned.  Only  the 
enactment  of  legal  provisions  sanctioning  the  change  was 
necessary  to  complete  the  process.  The  common  use  in 
subsequent  law  of  the  terms  "  servant  for  life ",  "  per- 
petual servant  ",  and  "  bond  servant  "  as  synonymous  with 
the  term  "  slave  "  shows  how  little  change  was  really  ef- 
fected in  the  condition  of  the  servant.  Such  change  con- 
sisted chiefly,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  master,  in  the 
extension  of  his  right  to  service,  and  consequently  in  the 
extension  of  his  obligation  of  protection  and  maintenance, 
and  what  was  still  more  important,  in  the  acquisition  of  the 
right  of  possession  of  the  offspring  of  his  slaves.  From  the 

1  Hurd,  The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United  States, 
i,  pp.  249,  257,  260,  262,  265,  266,  268,  269,  275,  276,  283,  288,  295-297, 
310;  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  35. 

*  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  35.  Indian  slavery  in  Virginia  was  not,  then, 
actually  in  existence  until  so  decreed  by  the  laws  of  1670,  1676  and 
1682.  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  280,  283,  346,  404. 


PROPERTY  RELATIONS 


213 


standpoint  of  the  slave,  it  meant  little  more  than  the  loss 
of  the  right  to  ultimate  liberty,  political  and  civil,  and  the 
extension  of  his  right  to  protection  and  maintenance.1 

The  legislation  which  marked  the  changing  status  varied 
in  nature  in  the  several  colonies.  In  certain  colonies  the 
slavery  status  was  simply  recognized  as  being  in  existence 
by  certain  acts  relating  to  slaves,  without  any  formal  dec- 
laration to  the  effect  that  Indians  held  in  servitude  should 
be  considered  slaves.  In  other  colonies  the  condition  of 
slavery  as  applied  to  Indians  was  legalized  by  general  acts 
relating  to  slavery  in  general,  and  not  specifying  either  In- 
dians or  negroes.  In  still  other  colonies  the  holding  of 
Indians  in  a  condition  of  actual  slavery  was  legalized  by 
legislative  acts  relating  directly  to  Indians.  An  act  of  this 
latter  character  was  passed  by  New  York  in  1678  declar- 
ing that  all  Indians  that  should  come  to,  or  be  brought  into 
the  province  at  any  time  during  the  succeeding  six  months, 
should  be  sold  as  slaves  for  the  benefit  of  the  government.2 
South  Carolina,  in  an  act  of  1712  relating  to  the  "better 
ordering  and  governing  of  negroes  and  slaves  ",  provided 
that  "  all  negroes,  mulattoes,  mestizoes  or  Indians  which 
have  at  any  time  heretofore  been  sold,  or  now  are  held  and 
taken  to  be,  or  hereafter  shall  be  brought  and  sold  as  slaves, 
are  hereby  declared  slaves  to  all  intents  and  purposes ;  ex- 
cepting all  such  negroes,  mulattoes,  mestizoes  or  Indians 
which  heretofore  have  been,  or  hereafter  shall  be  for  some 
particular  merit,  made  and  declared  free,  either  by  the  Gov- 
ernor and  Council  of  this  province,  or  by  their  respective 

1  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  pp.  27-37.  The  status  of  servitude  had  distinct 
recognition  in  statute  law  as  follows:  Virgin:a,  1619;  Massachusetts, 
1630-1636;  Maryland,  1637;  Connecticut,  1643;  Rhode  Island,  1647; 
North  Carolina,  1665;  Pennsylvania,  1682;  Georgia,  1732.  Ballagh, 
op.  cit.,  p.  36. 

1  Bartram,  Retrographs,  p.  42. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [466 

owners  and  masters;  and  also,  excepting  all  such  negroes, 
mulattoes,  mestizoes  or  Indians  as  can  prove  they  ought 
not  to  be  sold  as  slaves  ".1  The  acts,  already  mentioned 
in  other  connections,  authorizing  the  enslavement  of  In- 
dian captives  taken  in  war,  the  holding  in  slavery  of  such 
captives  when  obtained  in  trade  from  sources  outside  the 
colony,  and  the  enslavement  of  free  Indians  by  the  colonial 
authorities  as  punishment  for  misdemeanors  and  crimes, 
are  also  cases  in  point. 

From  the  standpoint  of  English  law  the  action  of  the 
colonial  legislatures  enacting  the  slavery  status  had  no  legal 
sanction.  It  was  based  on  the  interpretation  of  the  com- 
mon law  of  nations,  that  is,  it  was  carried  on  in  accordance 
with  a  "  law  not  promulgated  by  legislation,  and  rested 
upon  prevalent  views  of  universal  jurisprudence,  or  the 
law  of  nations  supported  by  the  express  or  implied  au- 
thority of  the  home  government "  concerning  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery.2  So  the  colonies,  by  a  gradual  process  of 
changing  conditions  and  legal  enactments,  substituted  the 
slavery  status  for  the  servitude  status  without  molestation 
from  the  home  government,  which  was  interested  in  col- 
onial slave  conditions  and  legislation  only  when  the  African 
slave  trade  was  involved.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  enact- 
ment of  colonial  laws  decreeing  the  slavery  status  did  not 
interfere  with  that  trade,  the  home  government  gave  no 
attention  to  the  matter.  As  for  Indian  slavery  per  se,  if 
England  had  given  it  any  attention  whatever,  she  would 
probably  have  considered  it  a  purely  colonial  matter.  Since 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  352.  The  act  was 
repeated  in  1722.  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  371. 

J  Kurd,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  225.  Not  until  1772  did  the  highest  English 
court  declare  the  common  law  of  England  incompa'ible  with  slavery, 
and  neither  recognizing  nor  permitting  its  existence  in  England.  The 
decision  had  no  relation  to  the  colonies. 


PROPERTY  RELATIONS  215 

it  was  never  sufficiently  extensive  to  interfere  with  negro 
slavery  and  the  slave  trade,  it  never  received  any  attention 
from  the  home  government,  and  so  existed  as  legal  because 
never  declared  illegal.  An  authority  on  the  legal  status  of 
early  American  slavery  states :  "  It  may  be  laid  down  as  a 
legal  axiom,  that  in  all  governments  in  which  the  municipal 
regulations  are  not  absolutely  opposed  to  slavery,  persons 
already  reduced  to  that  state  may  be  held  in  it,  and  we  also 
assume,  as  a  first  principle,  that  slavery  has  been  permitted 
and  tolerated  in  all  the  colonies  established  in  America  by 
European  powers,  as  relates  to  blacks  and  also  as  relates  to 
Indians  in  the  first  periods  of  conquest  and  colonization. 
This  accounts  in  a  measure  for  the  absence  of  any  legisla- 
tive act  of  European  powers  for  intruding  slavery  into  the 
American  dominions."  x  Hence  it  followed  that  the  Eng- 
lish colonial  charters  authorizing  the  colonial  legislatures 
to  make  laws,  gave  no  license  as  such  to  enslave.2 

With  the  change  from  the  status  of  servitude  to  the 
status  of  slavery,  certain  of  the  attributes  of  the  former 
condition  were  continued  and  connected  with  the  latter. 
Chief  of  these,  and  the  fundamental  idea  on  which  the 
change  was  effected,  was  the  conception  of  property  right 
which,  from  the  idea  of  the  ownership  of  an  individual's 
service  resting  upon  contract  implied  or  expressed,  came 
to  be  that  of  the  ownership  of  an  individual's  person. 

1  Wheeler,  op.  cit.,  p.  15.  Had  there  been  any  objection  raised  by 
the  mother  coun'ry  to  the  enslavement  of  Indians  on  the  ground  of 
illegality,  the  colonists  could  have  fallen  back  on  the  recognized  right 
of  enslaving  captives  in  war.  By  a  legal  fiction  the  Indians  could  at 
any  time  have  been  considered  in  a  state  of  war,  their  lands  con- 
fisca'ed,  and  their  persons  seized  and  held  for  disposal  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  whites.  Such  was  the  legal  argument  used  by  England 
in  justification  of  enslaving  the  African  negroes. 

8  For  a  discussion  of  the  neglect  to  define  the  Indians'  rights  in  the. 
various  le'.ters  patent  and  charters,  see  the  Eighteenth  Annual  Report 
of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  pt.  ii,  p.  550. 


216  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [468 

Indian  slaves  were  recognized  as  property  in  all  the  Eng- 
lish colonies,  and  were  openly  bought  and  sold  at  both 
public  and  private  sales  like  negroes  and  other  property.1 
They  were  advertised  in  the  colonial  newspapers  with  state- 
ments of  their  qualifications  and  ability  for  work,  their  ages, 
and  sometimes  descriptions  of  their  personal  appearance. 
From  the  New  England  newspapers  it  is  apparent  that  for  a 
time  dealers  advertised  such  slaves  for  sale  openly  in  their 
own  names.2  Later  the  possible  purchaser  was  directed  by  the 
advertisement  to  "inquire  of  the  Printer  and  know  further", 
or  to  "  inquire  at  the  Post  Office  ".3  It  was  not  uncommon 
for  slaves  offered  for  sale  to  choose  their  future  owner 
from  those  who  desired  to  purchase  them,4  or  to  approve 
the  bill  of  sale.5 

Like  other  property,  real  or  personal,  Indian  slaves  could 
be  given  away  by  word  of  mouth  or  by  "  last  will  and  tes- 
tament ".  One  of  the  earliest  of  such  wills  on  record  is  that 
of  Governor  John  Winthrop  of  Massachusetts,  made  in 
1639,  by  which  he  gave  to  his  son  Adam,  Governor's  Island 
and  with  it  "  also  my  Indians  thereon  ".6  In  South  Caro- 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  i,  p  27, 
contains  a  bill  of  sale  of  an  Indian  man,  given  by  Governor  John 
Winthrop  of  Massachusetts  to  John  Mainford  of  Barbadoes. 

*  As  typical  examples  of  this  k:nd  of  advertisement,  see  Boston 
Gazette,  December  15,  1718;  Pennsylvania  Gazette.  March  7,  1732; 
New  England  Weekly  Journal,  March  5,  1733;  Boston  News  Letter, 
August  20,  1711;  January  5,  1719;  December  28,  1720. 

8  B osto n  News  Letter,  July  2,  1711;  October  11,  1708;  October  6, 
1737;  February  n,  1717;  November  22,  1708;  May  24,  1714;  Boston 
Gazette  or  Weekly  Journal,  November  15,  1748;  New  England  Week  y 
Journal,  February  24,  1729. 

4  Stiles,  A  History  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  etc.,  i,  p.  233 ;  New  York 
Mercury,  June  12,  1758. 

6  Early  Records  of  Portsmouth,  p.  434;  Currier,  History  of  New- 
bury,  p.  254. 

6  Winthrop,  Life  and  Letters  of  John  Winthrop,  ii,  p.  252;  Winsor, 
The  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  i,  p.  489. 


469]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  217 

lina  where  Indian  slaves  were  most  numerous,  the  records 
of  their  disposal  by  will  are  frequent.1  The  custom,  in  fact, 
was  universal  in  the  colonies.2 

Indian  slaves  were  listed  in  the  various  colonies  in  the 
inventories  of  estates  along  with  indentured  servants  of  un- 
expired  terms  3  and  negro  slaves.4  They  were  taken  like 
other  chattels  in  payment  for  debt,  and  in  certain  of  the 
colonies  provision  was  made  by  law  regarding  the  matter. 
South  Carolina,  February  7,  1690,  decreed  that  a  slave  was 
to  be  taken  like  any  other  chattel  as  payment  for  debt.5 
Maryland,  1729,  passed  an  act  to  the  effect  that  no  slave 
should  be  taken  for  any  debt  due  from  the  deceased  so  long 
as  there  should  be  any  other  goods  sufficient  for  the  pur- 
pose.6 In  those  colonies  where  legislation  makes  no  men- 
tion of  the  matter,  it  is  known  from  the  history  of  negro 
slavery  that  the  custom  was  similar  to  that  of  Carolina. 

The  proximity  of  the  Indian  tribes  to  the  colonists, 
furthermore,  afforded  a  condition  most  suitable  for  the  es- 
cape of  Indian  slaves.  Individual  testimony,  frequent  ad- 
vertisements in  the  colonial  newspapers  giving  descriptions 

1  See  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,  vii,  p. 
169,  (1691);  x,  p.  85,  (1694);  v,  p.  98,  (1710);  v,  p.  164,  (1730);  vi, 

p.  173,  (1732) ;  v,  p.  105,  (1734) ;  vi,  p.  117,  (1735) ;  v,  p.  218,  (1753) ; 

v,  p.  113,  (1765)  ;  viii,  p.  214,  (1769)  ;  vi,  p.  25,  (1802). 

1  Charleston  Year  Book,  1900,  p.  42  (appendix),  cites  a  will  in  New 
London,  Connecticut  (1711)  disposing  of  Indian  slaves.  Schuyler, 
Colonial  New  York,  ii,  p.  293,  cites  the  will  of  Arient  Schuyler,  De- 
'cember,  1724,  bequeathing  to  each  of  his  two  daughters  an  Indian 
slave  woman.  February  7,  1690,  South  Carolina  passed  a  law  that 
slaves  should  descend  by  inheri'ance  like  any  other  property.  The 
Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p  343. 

8  See  Weeden,  Economic  History  of  New  England,  i,  p.  292. 

4  See  Early  Records  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  xvi,  p.  244. 

6  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  343. 

6  Bacon,  Laws  of  Maryland,  e'c.  Both  these  laws  related  to  slaves 
in  general,  and  did  not  specify  either  negro  or  Indian  slaves. 


2i8  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [470 

of  fugitive  Indian  slaves  and  offering  rewards  for  their 
capture  and  return,  and  the  amount  of  colonial  legislation 
concerning  both  negro  and  Indian  runaway  slaves,  show 
that  Indians  held  in  servitude  took  frequent  advantage  of 
the  opportunities  at  hand  for  their  escape,  and  that  their 
owners  used  all  possible  means  to  regain  their  lost  prop- 
erty. At  the  time  following  the  Pequot  War,  Mason  com- 
plained of  the  tendency  to  run  away  shown  by  the  Pequot 
slaves  in  the  colonies.1  The  Indians  enslaved  after  King 
Philip's  War  likewise  escaped.  May  hew  tells  of  runaway 
Indian  slaves  in  Massachusetts  in  i6go.2  In  this  same  year 
one  Isaac  Morrill  of  New  Jersey  was  arrested  at  Newbury, 
Massachusetts,  for  enticing  Indian  and  negro  slaves  to  run 
away.3 

The  Boston  News  Letter  came  into  existence,  I7O4,4  at 
about  the  time  when  Indian  slaves  began  to  be  brought  into 
the  northern  colonies  from  the  Spanish  islands  and  from 
the  Carolinas.  Rarely  was  there  an  issue  of  that  or  the 
other  Massachusetts  newspapers  from  that  time  down  to 
the  Revolutionary  period  which  did  not  contain  an  adver- 
tisement for  a  runaway  Indian  slave.  Sometimes  the  same 
advertisement  was  repeated  in  two  or  three  successive 
issues,5  and  was  often  inserted  in  more  than  one  news- 
paper. For  the  capture  and  return  of  the  fugitives,  rewards 
were  offered,  sometimes  indefinite  in  nature  as  "  suitable 
rewards  ",6  sometimes  of  stated  amounts  as  £3,*  forty 

1  Mason,  A  Brief  History  of  the  Pequot  War,  etc.,  in  Orr,  op.  cit.< 
P.  39- 
f  Mayhew,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 

*  Coffin,  A  Sketch  of  the  Plistory  of  Neivbury,  etc.,  p.  153. 
4  This  was  the  first  newspaper  in  the  colonies. 

6  Boston  News  Letter,  August  6;  August  13;  August  20,  1711. 

*  Ibid.,  August  6,  1711. 

7  Ibid.,  April  7,  1718;  May  23,  1745;  July  4,  1751;  Boston  Gazette  and 


471]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  219 

shillings,1  twenty  shillings,2  £6,3  £2O,4  £5,5  £7,°  £i5,T 
four  pistoles,8  fifty  shillings.9  These  advertisements  relate 
for  the  most  part  to  fugitive  men  and  boy  Indian  slaves,  but 
advertisements  relating  to  runaway  women  Indian  slaves 
are  not  lacking.10  The  escapes  appear  for  the  most  part, 
though  not  always,  to  have  been  made  singly.  One  adver- 
tisement shows  two  Indian  men,  two  Indian  women  and 
an  Indian  boy  belonging  to  different  persons  to  have  es- 
caped together.11  Captains  of  vessels  were  often  cautioned 
in  the  advertisements  against  carrying  away  such  fugitive 
slaves,  and  any  person  harboring  them  or  aiding  them  to 
escape  was  threatened  with  full  penalty  of  the  law. 

Weekly  Journal,  November  I,  1743;  New  York  Gazette,  July  23; 
August  6;  August  20,  1733;  February  13,  1739;  Boston  News  Letter, 
October  30,  1760;  November  6,  1760;  November  28,  1760. 

I  Boston  News  Letter,   March   2,    1732;    October  4,    1739;   June  28, 
1750  ;New  England  Weekly  Journal,  October  16,  1727;  New  England 
Courant,   August   19,   1723;   Pennsylvania  Mercury,   August  28,   1729; 
Pennsylvania  Journal,  June   18,    1767;   New   York   Gazette,  June  24: 
July  8;  July   15;  July  29;   August   12;   August  26,   1734;   New   York 
Weekly  Mercury,  October  27,  1740;  November  3;  November  10,  1740; 
May  30;  June  13,  1757- 

*  Boston  News  Letter,  October  7,  1742;  August  23,  1744;  New  York 
Mercury,  June  12,  June  19,  June  26,  July  3,  1758. 

3  Boston  News  Letter,  November  10,  1748 ;  Boston  Post  Boy,  July 
25,  1743- 

'Boston  Post  Boy,  July  6,  1752;  July  18,  1753;  Boston  Gazette. 
August  i,  1749. 

6  Boston  Post  Boy,  May  2,  1743;  July  2,  1750;  August  6,  1750;  New 
England  Courant,  June  17,  1723;  Boston  Weekly  Mercury,  October  2, 
1735;  New  York  Weekly  Mercury,  August  16,  1756. 

6  Boston  Post  Boy,  February  11,  1745;  April  15.  1751. 

7  Boston  Post  Boy,  December  5,  1748. 

8  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  October  5,  1738. 

9  Pennsylvania  Mercury,  July  30,  1730. 

10  Boston  News  Letter,  August  6;  August  13;  August  20,  1711; 
American  Weekly  Mercury,  May  24,  1726;  New  York  Weekly  Mercury, 
June  12;  June  19;  June  26;  July  3,  1758.  Boston  Gazette,  April  7,  1718. 

II  Boston  News  Letter,  September  10,  1711. 


220  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [472 

All  the  colonies  enacted  fugitive  slave  laws.  Some  of 
these  laws  were  applied  to  slaves  in  general,  some  to  ne- 
groes and  "  other  slaves,"  still  others  to  negro,  mulatto  and 
Indian  slaves.  The  colonies  where  slavery  was  of  greatest 
extent  had  the  most  extensive  and  elaborate  laws  on  the 
subject,  and  those  colonies  where  Indian  slavery  existed  to 
any  considerable  extent  included  the  term  "  Indian  slaves  " 
in  their  laws.  Pennsylvania  made  but  little  provision  re- 
garding runaway  slaves.  Maryland  concerned  itself  more 
largely  with  servants. 

Some  of  these  laws  did  not  define  the  term  "  runaway 
slave  ".  Others  in  an  attempt  to  avoid  confusion  gave  clear 
explanations  of  the  term.  Such  an  act  was  passed  by  Con- 
necticut in  1690,  specifying  that  any  Indian,  mulatto  or 
negro  servants  and  slaves  wandering  outside  the  place  to 
which  they  belonged  without  a  ticket  of  leave  or  pass  in 
writing  from  some  assistant  or  justice  of  the  peace  or  from 
their  owner,  were  to  be  considered  runaways  and  treated 
as  such.1  New  Jersey,  in  1713,  considered  as  runaways 
any  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slave  who  was  five  miles 
from  his  master's  habitation  without  written  leave  of  ab- 
sence from  his  owner,  and  any  such  slave  found  in  New  Jer- 
sey but  belonging  to  another  province  was  declared  a  run- 
away.2 South  Carolina,  by  the  act  of  1690,  considered  as  a 
runaway  any  negro  or  Indian  slave  absent  from  his  master's 
plantation  (no  distance  specified),  without  a  written  ticket 
of  leave  unless  in  company  with  a  white  man.3 

To  discourage  aid  and  assistance  being  given  fugitive 
slaves,  the  colonies  specified  by  legislative  acts  the  punish- 
ment to  follow  such  offense.  On  June  14,  1705,  Lord  Corn- 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  iv,  p.  40. 

1  Nevill,  Acts  of   the   General  Assembly   of  the   Province   of  New 
Jersey,  pp.  18,  22. 

8  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  343. 


PROPERTY  RELATIONS  221 

bury,  in  his  opening  speech  to  the  New  York  assembly,  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  regarding  the  necessity  for  passing  an 
act  to  prevent  negro,  Indian  and  mulatto  slaves  running 
away  from  their  masters.1  An  act  of  the  common  council 
of  Albany,  1686,  forbade  all  persons  harboring  negro 
or  Indian  slaves  in  their  houses  without  the  owners'  con- 
sent.2 Pennsylvania,  1726,  decreed  a  fine  of  five  shillings 
for  the  first  hour  and  one  shilling  for  every  hour  afterward 
that  any  person  should  harbor  or  entertain  any  runaway 
negro,  Indian  or  mulatto  slave.3  Virginia,  by  the  act  of 
1705,  specified  a  fine  of  £100  for  any  shipmaster  transport- 
ing any  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slave  out  of  the  colony 
without  permission  of  the  owner.4  South  Carolina,  also, 
by  an  act  of  1690,  levied  forty  shillings  fine  on  any  one  not 
attempting  to  apprehend  a  negro  or  Indian  slave  coming 
into  his  plantation  without  a  ticket  of  leave  from  his  master 
or  not  accompanied  by  a  white  man.5 

Not  infrequently  the  colonial  authorities  were  called 
upon  to  furnish  protection  to  the  owners  of  Indian  slaves 
against  their  seizure  by  the  free  Indians,  or  against  fugitive 
Indian  slaves  being  hidden  and  retained  by  the  tribes.  To 
effect  the  return  of  such  slaves  special  inducements  were 
offered  by  the  colonial  government  from  time  to  time.  At 
the  close  of  the  Pequot  War  an  agreement  was  made  by 
the  chief,  Miantonomo,  and  the  Massachusetts  government, 
by  which  the  former  promised  to  seize  such  Pequot  slaves 
as  escaped,  and  return  them  to  their  owners.8  On  June  2, 

1  Messages  from  the  Governors  of  New  York  State,  i,  p.  116. 

8  Weise,  The  History  of  the  City  of  Albany,  etc.,  p,  209. 

8  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania,  iv,  p.  62. 

4  Hening,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  217. 

6  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  343. 

6  Drake,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  etc.,  ninth  edition,  pp.  60-70; 
Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  p.  267;  ii,  p.  8,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early 
American  History. 


222  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [474 

1641,  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts  made  a  similar 
agreement  with  Lieutenant  Willard  of  Concord,  Ensign 
Holman  of  Dorchester,  and  Sergeant  Collacot  of  Dor- 
chester. As  a  partial  return  for  the  monopoly  of  the  Indian 
trade  granted  them,  these  men  agreed  to  demand,  wherever 
they  should  find  them,  all  fugitive  Pequot  slaves  that  be- 
longed to  the  English.1  A  similar  request  for  protec- 
tion is  found  in  New  York,  where  two  widows  peti- 
tioned governor  and  council,  May  16,  1717,  regarding  two 
Indian  slaves  who  were  secreted  by  the  Indians  of  Pekke- 
meck.2  Events  in  North  Carolina,  following  the  Tusca- 
rora  War,  offer  numerous  illustrations  of  colonial  action 
taken  to  secure  the  return  of  such  fugitives.  The  Indian 
slaves  in  the  colony,  consisting  largely  of  the  captive  Tus- 
carora,  frequently  escaped  and  took  refuge  with  the  free 
Indians  of  their  tribe.  The  Indians  neglected  to  return 
these  runaways,  and  the  council  was  compelled  to  call  many 
times  upon  "  King  Blount "  to  compel  his  people  to  return 
the  slaves  according  to  his  agreement  with  the  Carolina 
government.  Such  action  is  recorded  as  late  as  I73i.3 

Sometimes  this  protection  of  slave  owners  in  their, prop- 
erty rights  assumed  intercolonial  importance.  Such  a  recog- 
nition of  property  rights  occurred  in  the  articles  of  feder- 
ation of  the  United  Colonies  of  New  England,  1643,  m  tne 
provision:  "If  any  servant  run  away  from  his  master  into 
any  of  these  confederated  jurisdictions,  ...  in  such  case, 
upon  certificate  of  one  magistrate  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
which  the  said  servant  fled,  or  upon  other  due  proof,  the 

1  Lech  ford,  Note  Book   kept  in  Boston,  Massachusetts  Bay,  from 
1638  to  1641,  p.  434. 

8  O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts,  pt.  ii,  p.  433. 

8  North   Carolina   CoJonial  Records,  ii,  pp.  315,   534  53$,  57°,   674; 
Hi,  p.  218;  xi,  pp.  10,  23. 


475]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  223 

said  servant  shall  be  delivered,  either  to  his  master  or  any 
other  that  pursues  and  brings  such  certificate  or  proof  "-1 

Since  it  was  found  that  certain  Indian  villages  harbored 
fugitive  Indians,  the  Confederation,  September  5,  1646, 
decided  that  such  villages  might  be  raided  and  the  inhabi- 
tants carried  off,  women  and  children  being  spared  as  far 
as  possible,  and  declared  that  "  because  it  will  be  charge- 
able keeping  Indians  in  prison  and,  if  they  should  escape, 
they  are  liable  to  prove  more  insolent  and  dangerous  after, 
it  was  thought  fit  that  upon  such  seizure  .  .  .  the  magis- 
trates of  the  jurisdiction  deliver  up  the  Indian  seized  to  the 
party  or  parties  indamaged,  either  to  serve  or  to  be  shipped 
out  and  exchanged  for  negroes,  as  the  cause  will  justly 
bear."  2  In  the  same  year  the  commissioners  of  the  United 
Colonies  sent  a  letter  to  Governor  Kieft  of  New  Nether- 
land  demanding  the  return  of  an  Indian  captive  "  fled  from 
her  master  at  Hartford  "  and  "  entertained  in  your  house 
at  Hartford  and,  though  required  by  the  magistrate,  .  .  . 
under  the  hands  of  your  agent  there  denied  .  .  .  and  said 
to  have  been  either  married  or  abused  by  one  of  your  men". 
"  Such  a  servant,"  they  declared,  "  is  part  of  her  master's 
estate  and  a  more  considerable  part  than  a  beast."  Kieft 
refused  to  give  up  the  Indian  woman,  and  replied:  "as 
concerns  the  barbarian  handmaid  ",  it  is  "  apprehended  by 
some,  that  she  is  no  slave,  but  a  f reewoman,  because  she 
was  neither  taken  in  war,  nor  bought  with  price,  but  was  in 
former  times  placed  with  me  by  her  parents  for  educa- 
tion ".3  By  the  intercolonial  treaty  of  September  19,  1650. 
the  provision  of  the  articles  of  confederation  concerning 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  ix,  pp.  6-7.  This  was  the  first  fugitive 
slave  law  in  America. 

1  Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  etc.,  ii,  p.  63 ;  Plymouth  Colony 
Records,  ix,  p.  71.  See  full  text  of  the  resolution,  p.  207. 

3  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  ix,  p.  64;  Brodhead,  History  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  revised  edition,  i,  p.  429. 


224  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [476 

fugitive  slaves  was  extended  so  as  to  include  the  intercourse 
of  the  New  Englanders  and  the  Dutch.1  Another  fugitive 
slave  law  similar  to  that  of  1643  was  contained  in  the 
articles  of  confederation  of  the  United  Colonies  in  i6j2.2 

Similar  events  involved  New  York  and  Pennsylvania. 
In  1723,  some  Seneca  Indians  trading  in  South  Carolina 
carried  away  an  Indian  slave  boy  belonging  to  an  English- 
man there.  The  governor  of  New  York  charged  the  Sen- 
eca with  the  act  and  demanded  that  the  slave  boy  be  re- 
turned. The  Seneca  acknowledged  that  they  were  among 
the  party  who  took  the  slave  boy,  said  that  he  had  been 
given  to  some  Susquehanna  Indians,  and  requested  the  gov- 
ornor  to  ask  for  him  there.3  An  undated  letter  of  William 
Penn  to  the  Susquehanna  Indians  regarding  some  Indian 
slaves  taken  from  the  people  of  New  York  by  them,  refers 
to  a  similar  incident.  In  it  Penn  mentions  the  people  of 
New  York  having  twice  appealed  to  him  regarding  an  In- 
dian woman  and  boy,  both  slaves,  bought  in  New  York 
from  the  governor  of  Carolina,  which  the  Susquehanna  In- 
dians had  taken  away.  Penn  urged  the  Susquehanna  to 
deliver  the  slaves  to  his  messenger  that  they  might  be  put 
on  board  a  vessel  and  returned  to  New  York.4 

In  July,  1682,  Plymouth  provided  that  if  any  Indian  who 
was  a  servant  of  the  English  should  run  away,  "  such  In- 
dians where  such  a  runaway  Indian  is  come,  shall  forth- 
with giye  notice  of  the  runaway  to  the  Indian  constable, 
who  ^Jfall  immediately  apprehend  such  Indian  servant  and 
carry  him  or  her  before  the  overseer  or  next  magistrate." 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  ix,  p.  64. 

2  Ibid.,  x,  p.  348;  Shurtleff,  op.  cit.,  iv,  pt.  ii,  p.  473;  Hurd,  The  Law 
of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United  States,  i,  p.  269. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  pp.  793,  796. 

4  Pennsylvania  Archives,  series  I,  xii,  p.  280. 

5  Baylies,  An  Historical  Memoir  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth, 
ii,  pt.  iv,  p.  39. 


477]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  225 

At  a  meeting,  January  9,  1713,  the  council  of  North 
Carolina  considered  the  matter  of  two  Indian  slaves  sent 
to  the  colony  from  Virginia,  and  found  that  they  belonged 
to  two  residents  of  South  Carolina  from  whom,  presum- 
ably, they  had  been  stolen.  The  council,  acknowledging  the 
owners'  claim  to  the  right  of  possession,  ordered  that  the 
Indians  be  delivered  to  Colonel  James  Moore  "  for  the  use 
and  on  behalf  of  the  owners."  x 

A  case  in  Massachusetts  shows  a  colonial  government  re- 
munerating a  citizen  for  an  Indian  slave  taken  from  him  by 
governmental  authority.  During  King  Philip's  War,  one 
George  Speere  bought  an  Indian  from  Captain  Hull  who 
had  been  empowered  by  the  council  to  make  sale  of  Indian 
captives  at  that  time.  The  council,  by  warrant  of  the  con- 
stable of  Braintree,  took  away  the  Indian  boy  for  some 
reason.  Speere  complained  of  the  loss  of  his  property, 
after,  as  he  said,  he  had  brought  it  to  a  "  very  tractable  and 
profitable  state  ",  and  petitioned  to  have  his  Indian  boy 
returned  to  him,  or  to  be  given  his  value.  The  council 
accordingly  granted  him  the  value.2 

As  in  the  case  of  other  property,  the  colonial  courts  were 
sometimes  called  upon  to  settle  disputes  regarding  the 
ownership  of  Indian  slaves.  Two  events  in  Massachusetts 
and  North  Carolina  are  cases  in  point.  In  1684,  the  Massa- 
chusetts Court  of  Assistants  was  called  upon  to  settle  a 
case  of  disputed  ownership  which  had  been  appealed  from 
the  County  Court  of  Salem.3  On  November  24,  1777, 
complaint  was  made  to  the  North  Carolina  House  of  Com- 
mons by  a  slave  owner  who  had  been  dispossessed  of  his 
Indian  slave  by  two  other  Carolinians.  The  House  ap- 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  2. 
*  Massachusetts  Manuscript  Records,  vol.  xxx. 

s  Records  of  the  Court  of  Assistants  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  i,  p.  259 


226  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [478 

pointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the  matter.1  Similar 
instances  in  other  years  are  recorded  in  connection  with 
North  Carolina.2 

With  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  incident  to  the 
slavery  status,  the  "  early  transition  of  the  slave  from  per- 
sonal estate  to  a  chattel  real,  or  real  estate  with  accompany- 
ing incidents,  was  easy  and  natural."  3  Under  the  caption 
of  "  property  "  both  negro  and  Indian  slaves  were  subject 
to  taxation  like  other  property,  either  for  colonial  revenue 
in  general  or  to  meet  local  expenses.  Moreover  in  cer- 
tain colonies  both  Indian  and  negro  slaves  were  assigned 
the  double  character  of  persons  subject  to  a  poll  tax  and 
property  subject  to  a  property  tax. 

South  Carolina,  in  the  act  of  1690,  provided  "  that  all 
slaves  ...  as  to  the  payment  of  debts 'shall  be  deemed  and 
taken  as  all  other  goods  and  chattels,  .  .  .  and  all  negroes 
and  slaves  shall  be  accounted  as  freehold  in  all  other  cases 
whatsoever  and  descend  accordingly  ".*  Middleton,  presi- 
dent of  the  council,  consequently  declared,  in  1725,  that 
negroes  were  real  property,  such  as  houses  and  lands,  in 
Carolina.5  Yet  they  were  always  returned  as  personal  prop- 
erty in  the  inventories  of  intestates.6  This  condition  con- 
tinued until  1740,  when  it  was  declared  that  negroes  and 
Indian  slaves  should  be  reputed  and  adjudged  in  law  to  be 
chattels  personal  in  the  hands  of  their  owners  and  pos- 
sessors and  their  executors,  administrators  and  assigns.7 

1  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  xii,  pp.  138-139,  302. 

*  Ibid.,  ii,  pp  95,  97,  113-114. 

8  Pallagh,  A  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  pp.  39-40. 

4  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  pp.  343-344. 

6  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  314. 

6  McCrady,  Slavery  in  the  Province  of  South   Carolina,  in  Annual 
Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1895,  P-  645. 

7  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  397. 


PROPERTY  RELATIONS  227 

Various  tax  acts  were  passed  from  time  to  time  for  special 
reasons,  and  in  some  of  these  Indian  slaves,  along  with 
negroes,  were  a  part  of  the  basis  of  taxation,  being  rated 
as  property  without  specification  as  to  real  or  personal, 
along  with  goods,  lands,  cattle  and  white  servants.  Such 
an  act  was  passed  in  1703.*  The  act  contained  the  general 
term  "  slaves  ",  which,  of  course,  included  Indian  slaves  by 
implication. 

A  tax  on  polls  was  generally  selected  by  the  colonies  as 
the  chief  source  of  revenue.  In  accordance  with  this  idea 
of  taxation  North  Carolina  during  the  eighteenth  century 
regarded  Indian  slaves  as  taxables.  In  the  earliest  legisla- 
tive action  of  the  colony  taxables  were  declared  to  be  every 
white  male  aged  sixteen  years,  and  every  slave,  negro,  mu- 
latto, or  Indian,  male  or  female,  aged  twelve  years.2  By 
the  act  of  1750,  furthermore,  a  taxable  was  every  white 
man  of  sixteen  years  of  age,  every  negro,  mulatto  or  mus- 
tee,  and  every  other  person  of  mixed  blood  to  the  fourth 
generation,  twelve  years  of  age.3 

In  Virginia,  especially,  there  was  much  confusion  re- 
garding the  position  of  the  slave  as  a  person  and  as  prop- 
erty. Until  after  the  Revolution,  taxes  were  chiefly  im- 
posed according  to  the  number  of  tithables  in  each  county, 
i.  e.,  persons  assessed  for  a  poll  tax.4  The  act  of  1649  de- 
clared all  imported  male  servants  to  be  tithables.  Indians 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Caro'ina,  i:,  p.  207.  The  act  of 
1704.  seeking  to  correct  any  misinterpretation  of  a  former  tax  act, 
specifies  whi  e  servants  among  the  property  serving  as  a  basis  for 
taxation,  but  does  not  mention  slaves.  Ibid ,  ii,  p.  264. 

*  Will'amson,  The  History  of  North  Carolina,  i,  p.  122 

3  Raper,  North  Carolina,  A  Study  in  English  Colonial  Government, 
P.  147- 

4  William   and  Mary   College   Quarterly,  viii,  p.    160.     At   first  on'y 
free  white  persons  were  tithables.     The  law  of   1645  provided   for  a 
tax  on  tithables  and  tithable  persons.     Henlng,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  306. 


228  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [480 

imported  into  the  colony  as  servants  were  included  by  im- 
plication. Since  in  the  preceding  year  an  act  had  declared 
that  a  specified  poll  tax  should  be  levied  only  on  the  tith- 
ables,  Indian  servants,  as  they  must  be  called  before  I67O,1 
were  attributed  a  legal  personality  or  a  membership  in  the 
social  status  inconsistent  with  the  condition  of  a  chattel 
or  property.  By  the  act  of  March,  1658,  Indian  servants, 
male  and  female,  sixteen  years  of  age,  were  included  among 
the  tithables  by  specific  mention.2  The  same  provision  was 
repeated  in  the  acts  of  March,  i662.8  Some  -doubt  having 
arisen  as  to  whether  this  law  applied  to  female  Indian  ser- 
vants as  well  as  to  male,  acts  were  passed  in  December, 
1662,*  September,  1672  5  and  November,  1682,°  to  settle 
the  matter.  The  former  act  related  to  women  servants 
commonly  employed  in  "  working  in  the  crop  " ;  the  latter 
declared  that  "  all  Indian  women  are  and  shall  be  tithables, 
and  ought  to  pay  levies  in  like  manner  as  negro  women 
brought  into  this  country  do,  and  ought  to  pay." 

In  1682,  the  gradual  process  of  change  from  the  status  of 
Indian  servitude  to  that  of  Indian  slavery  was  completed. 
The  Virginia  act  of  1670  had  decreed  a  condition  of  slav- 
ery for  all  Indians  imported  into  the  colony  by  sea.7  But 
the  great  body  of  subject  Indians  were  natives  of  the  coun- 
try. Such  Indians  remained  servants  up  to  1676,  when  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Indian  war,  one  of  Bacon's  laws  made 
all  Indian  captives  slaves.8  In  1682,  slavery  was  extended  to 

1  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  35. 

*  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  454. 

*  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  84.  4  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  170. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  296.  6  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  492. 

7  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  283.     The  act  doubtless  referred  to  Indians  imported 
from  the  West  Indies  or  Spanish  South  America. 

8  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  346. 


4gi]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  229 

captives  sold  by  tributary  Indians  "  in  the  hope  of  miti- 
gating their  condition  as  it  was  certain  that  they  would  be 
held  in  slavery  by  their  captors."  *  These  acts  did  not 
make  provision  for  changing  the  condition  of  Indian  ser- 
vants that  existed  in  the  colony  before  1670.  Such  a  change 
had  come  about  through  a  gradual  and  natural  process  with 
the  passage  of  the  laws  mentioned  and  the  changed  attitude 
toward  the  subject  Indians,  so  that  in  fact  all  subject  In- 
dians were  not  considered  slaves.  Hence,  in  1682,  all  In- 
dian slaves  were  considered  in  law  as  persons  inasmuch  as 
they  were  tithables.  By  1705  it  was  found  necessary,  for 
legal  purposes,  to  "  advance  the  property  notion  of  the  slave 
from  personalty  to  realty,"  2  though  certain  incidents  of 
personalty  were  still  retained.  The  statute  of  that  year 
by  which  the  change  was  effected  provided  that  in  future 
"  all  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slaves  in  all  courts  of  juris- 
diction and  other  places  within  this  dominion  shall  be  held, 
taken  and  adjudged  to  be  real  estate  and  not  chattels  ".3 
As  a  part  of  real  estate  property  slaves  were  subject  to 
taxation.  An  act  of  1748  again  made  slaves  personal  es- 
tate, but  was  repealed  by  the  king,  October  31,  1751.*  By 
the  acts  of  1779  and  1781  slaves  were  still  liable  to  a  poll 
tax  of  £5  and  10  s.  respectively,  to  be  paid  by  the  owner.5 
So  it  may  be  seen  that  from  1649  until  after  the  Revolu- 

1  Hening,  op,  cit.,  i,  pp.  396,  471. 
3  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 

3  Hening,  op.  cit ,  iii,  p.  133. 

4  Ibid.,  v,  p.  432 ;  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  67. 

6  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  72.  A  curious  case  shows  the  owner  of  an 
Indian  slave  in  Bristol  Parish,  Virg'nia,  petitioning  the  vestry  of  the 
parish,  1730,  to  grant  that  such  Indian  slave  might  be  exempted  from 
the  parish  levy  as  he  was  sick  and  unable  to  work  The  petition  was 
granted.  Vestry  Book  and  Register  of  Bristol  Parish,  Virginia, 
1720-1789,  p.  49. 


230  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [482 

tion  Indian  servants  and  slaves  either  as  persons  or  as  prop- 
erty were  used  as  a  basis  for  taxation  in  Virginia. 

Masachusetts  was  the  only  other  colony  that  assigned  the 
double  status  of  personalty  and  real  property  to  its  slaves. 
There,  as  in  Virginia,  the  status  varied  from  time  to  time. 
Under  the  earliest  laws  of  taxation  in  that  colony,  slaves 
must  have  been  rated,  if  taxed  at  all,  as  polls,  the  owners 
paying  for  them  as  for  other  servants  and  children,  "  such 
as  take  not  wages".  This  continued  until  1692,  when  "every 
male  slave  of  sixteen  years  old  and  upwards  "  was  rated  at 
"  £20  estate  ".x  But  in  1694  "  all  negroes,  mulattoes  and 
Indian  servants,  as  well  male  as  female,  of  sixteen  years  old 
and  upwards  ",  were  assigned  a  status  of  personalty  by 
being  rated  at  I2d.  per  poll,  the  same  as  other  polls.2  In 
1695,  "  all  negro,  mulatto  and  Indian  servants  "  again  be- 
came a  property  basis  for  taxation  by  an  act  valuing  negro, 
mulatto  and  Indian  male  servants  fourteen  years  of  age 
and  upward  at  £20  estate,  and  similar  female  servants  at 
£14  estate,  unless  disabled  by  infirmity.8  They  were  subse- 
quently, in  1696*  rated  as  "  other  personal  estate  ",  which 
rating  was  continued  in  1697  5  and  1698,°  in  the  latter  year 
"according  to  the  found  judgment  and  discretion  of  the 
assessors,  not  excluding  faculties  ",  i.  e.,  trades  or  profes- 
sions. This  rating  for  faculties  was  common  throughout 
the  early  tax  laws  of  Massachusetts,  and  continued  into  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  was  applied  to  white  men  from  the 
beginning,7  but  the  law  of  1698  appears  to  have  been  the 

1  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  92. 

8  Ibid.,  i,  p.  167. 

3  Ibid.,  i,  p.  214.  *  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  240,  258. 

5  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  278,  302.  6  Ibid.,  i,  pp.  337,  359. 

'Moore,  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  p.  62; 
Douglas,  The  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts,  etc.,  p.  31. 


483]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  231 

first  and  only  one  in  which  the  feature  was  applied  to  the 
negroes,  mulattoes  and  Indians  who  were  slaves.  There 
was  little  variation  in  the  tax  laws  during  the  remainder 
of  the  colonial  period.  All  Indian,  negro  and  mulatto  ser- 
vants continued  to  be  rated  as  personal  property  in  the 
usual  yearly  levies.1  Occasionally,  as  in  the  earlier  period, 
some  of  those  who  were  servants  for  a  term  of  years,  but 
not  for  life,  were  numbered  and  rated  as  polls.2  Other  ex- 
emptions were  made  in  the  case  of  slaves  "  disabled  by  in- 
firmity ".3 

In  1716,  an  attempt  was  made  to  modify  this  feature  of 
property  status  for  slaves  in  Massachusetts.  In  that  year 
Judge  Sewall  was  a  member  of  the  council,  and  on  June 
22,  1716,  proposed  to  that  body  that  negro  and  Indian 
slaves  be  no  longer  rated  with  horses  and  hogs  as  personal 
property.  The  council  agreed  to  the  proposition,  and  its 
decision  was  sent  down  to  the  deputies  for  concurrence. 
But  the  members  of  the  house  refused  assent  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  just  going  to  make  a  new  valuation.  In  the 
preceding  valuations  of  the  property  of  their  constituents, 
Indian,  negro  and  mulatto  slaves  were  regarded  as  prop- 
erty, and  the  owners  of  it  should  be  taxed  accordingly.4 

In  the  remaining  colonies  that  taxed  Indian  and  other 
slaves,  such  taxation  was  levied  on  the  basis  of  property, 
sometimes  personal  and  sometimes  real.  The  annual  tax 
in  South  Carolina  included  slaves  among  the  taxable  prop- 

1  The  laws  are  given  in  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  ii,  iii,  and  iv. 
*  See  laws  of  1707  and  1718. 

3  See  laws  of  1695  and  1707. 

4  Moore,  o/>.  cit.,  p.  64;  Sewall's  Diary,  in  Massachusetts  Historical 
Satiety  Collections,  series  5,  vii,  p  87;  Coffin,  A  Sketch  of  the  History 
of  Newbury,  etc.,  p.  188. 


232  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [484 

erty.1  A  law  of  1719  provided  that  since  Indian  slaves 
were  commonly  reputed  to  be  of  less  value  than  negro 
slaves,  all  persons  possessing  them  should  pay  for  each  In- 
dian in  proportion  to  half  the  value  of  whatever  might  be 
rated  and  imposed  for  each  negro,  and  no  more.2 

In  New  York  Indian  and  negro  slaves  entered  but  little 
into  the  system  of  taxation,  since  slaves  were  not  numer- 
ous in  the  colony  and  therefore  would  furnish  but  a  poor 
basis  for  taxation,  and  the  finances  of  the  colony  were  pro- 
vided for  more  largely  by  income  taxes  than  otherwise.  In 
1709,  however,  along  with  a  tax  on  chimneys,  fireplaces  and 
stoves,  a  tax  of  two  shillings  was  levied  on  every  negro  or 
Indian  slave  from  fifteen  to  sixty  years  of  age,  with  direc- 
tions for  collecting  the  same,  and  provision  for  fine  and 
punishment  if  such  tax  were  not  paid.3  Again,  in  1734, 
when  arrangement  was  made  to  raise  a  certain  amount 
yearly  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  one  source  of  revenue  was 
to  be  a  tax  of  "  two  pennyweight  and  twelve  grains  of  Sivil 
Pillar  or  Mexican  Plate,  or  the  sum  of  one  shilling  in  Bills 
of  Credit  made  current  in  this  colony  "  on  every  Indian  or 
mulatto  slave  who  was  above  the  age  of  fourteen  and  under 
the  age  of  fifty  years.4 

An  instance  of  Indian  slaves  serving  as  a  basis  of  taxa- 
tion in  a  local  levy  is  found  in  the  history  of  Rye,  New 
York.  At  a  town  meeting  in  1703,  to  raise  the  assessment 
for  the  ensuing  year,  it  was  decided  that  a  portion  of  the 

1  Laws  of  1758  and  1777  in  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Caro- 
lina, iv,  pp.  116,  365.  These  laws  serve  as  examples  of  the  various  tax 
acts. 

8  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  iii,  p.  77. 

1  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i,  pp.  682-683. 

4  Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  877,  881. 


485]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  233 

sum  should  be  obtained  by  the  tax  on  £12  valuation  of  all 
slaves  of  sixteen  years  old  and  upward.1  Though  Indian 
slaves  were  not  mentioned  in  the  town  action,  they  were 
doubtless  included  by  implication,  for  in  1711  the  people 
of  the  town  were  called  upon  to  pay  taxes  under  "  an  act 
for  raising  one  shilling  on  every  Indian  and  negro  slave.'' 

In  most  of  the  colonies  import  duties,  and  in  at  least 
one  instance  export  duties,  were  levied  on  Indian  slaves 
brought  into  or  taken  from  the  colonies.  Such  duties  were 
generally  levied  for  self-defense,  though  occasionally  for 
revenue.  During  the  colonial  period  England's  interest  in 
the  African  slave  trade  led  her  to  take  effective  measures 
to  dispose  of  as  many  negroes  as  possible  in  the  American 
colonies.  In  course  of  time  the  colonists  awoke  to  the 
danger  which  might  result  from  an  excess  of  an  ignorant 
servile  class  which  in  some  sections  outnumbered  the  white 
population.  Frequent  attempts  were  made  in  various  colo- 
nies to  check  the  importation  of  negroes  by  levying  import 
duties.  At  times  Indians  as  well  as  negroes  were  included 
in  these  laws.  In  their  enactment  it  seems  probable  that 
the  colonial  legislatures  had  a  double  purpose:  to  shut  out 
undesirables  of  both  races,  and  to  prevent  the  importation 
of  negroes  in  the  guise  of  Indians.  Real  danger  threatened 
the  colonies  from  an  excessive  importation  of  Indians  as 
slaves,  and  an  attempt  was  therefore  made  to  check  it.  In 
those  colonies  where  import  duties  furnished  a  substantial 
part  of  the  colonial  revenue,  such  duties  were  levied  on  In- 
dian slaves  as  well  as  on  other  property. 

As  early  as  1698  the  importation  of  negroes  into  South 
Carolina  had  reached  such  proportions  that  the  safety  of 

1  Baird,  History  of  Rye,  p.  202. 
9  Ibid.,  p.  182. 


234  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [486 

the  province  was  considered  endangered.1  Attempts  to 
check  such  importation  were  accordingly  made  throughout 
the  colonial  period  by  levying  import  duties.  As  the 
number  of  Indian  slaves  in  the  colony  increased,  they  too 
were  included  as  a  basis  for  duties.  By  the  act  of  1721,  the 
importation  of  negro,  mulatto,  mustee  and  Indian  slaves 
(Spanish  Indians  excepted)  by  their  owners  was  permitted 
without  duty,  provided  such  owner  intended  to  settle  in  the 
colony  and  employ  the  slaves  in  his  own  service.  He  was 
required,  however,  to  take  an  oath  that  in  case  he  sold  any 
of  these  slaves  within  twelve  months  after  bringing  them 
into  the  colony,  he  would  pay  certain  required  duties.2 

The  Spanish  Indians  were  considered  especially  unde- 
sirable. Accordingly,  an  act  of  1722  imposed  upon  all  such 
Spanish  Indians,  negroes,  mulattoes  and  mustees  imported, 
a  duty  of  £50  current  money  of  the  province.3  The  duty  on 
Indian  slaves  was  levied  without  regard  to  age,  while  that 
on  negro  slaves  was  graduated  according  to  age.  A  report 
to  the  Board  of  Trade,  February  2,  1736,  gave  the  duty  on 
negro  slaves  imported  from  Africa  above  ten  years  old  as 
£10;  under  ten  years  old,  £5;  and  on  all  Indians  imported, 
£50  each.4  The  following  was  the  tariff  schedule  on  negroes 
and  Indians  in  force  in  I775-5  "Indians  imported  as  slaves, 
each  £50.  Negroes  or  slaves,  four  feet  two  inches  or  more 
in  height,  each  £10.  Negroes,  under  four  feet  two,  and 
above  three  feet  two  inches,  each  £5.  Negroes,  under  four 
feet  two,  and  above  three  feet  two  inches,  sucking  children 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  ii,  p.  153. 

2  Ibid.,  in,  p.  196. 
1  Ibid.,  in,  p.  196. 

4  South  Carolina  Public  Records,  xviii,  1736-1737;  B.  P.  R.  O.,  S.  C, 
B.  T.,  viii,  p.  37. 

5  The   Centennial  of  Incorporation   of  Charleston,  South   Carolina, 

p.  210. 


487]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  235 

excepted,  each  2£  IDS.  Negroes  or  slaves  from  any  of  his 
Majesty's  plantations  in  America,  where  such  slaves  have 
been  for  six  months  or  more,  unless  imported  by  the  owners 
with  design  to  be  employed  on  their  own  account,  besides 
the  above  £10,  £5,  and  £2  IDS.,  each  slave,  £50." 

The  earliest  act  passed  in  Virginia  to  check  the  importa- 
tion of  negroes,  that  of  1699,  imposed  a  duty  of  fifteen 
shillings  per  poll  upon  every  servant  not  born  in  England  or 
Wales,  and  twenty  shillings  for  every  negro  or  other  slave 
imported  into  the  colony.  This  duty  was  continued  or  in- 
creased by  a  number  of  temporary  acts  between  1669  and 
I776.1  The  acts  were  worded  "  all  slaves  "  or  "  negroes 
and  other  slaves  ".  Thus  import  duties  were  levied  upon 
Indian  as  well  as  negro  slaves.  A  statute  of  1710  advanced 
the  duty  on  negroes  to  £5  per  head,  and  placed  a  duty  of 
twenty  shillings  on  Indians  imported  by  land.2  The  differ- 
ence in  the  amount  of  the  duties  is  indicative  of  the  relative 
amount  of  danger  attached  by  the  colonists  to  the  presence 
of  the  two  classes  of  slaves  in  the  colony. 

At  the  time  of  the  Tuscarora  War,  the  northern  colonies 
realized  fully  the  possible  results  of  the  importation  of  the 
captives  sold  in  their  communities.  Some  of  them  in  conse- 
quence passed  laws  to  ward  off  danger  from  this  source.  In 
1712,  Rhode  Island  passed  an  act  levying  a  duty  of  forty 
shillings  on  every  Indian  brought  into  the  colony.  The  act 
was  enforced  by  severe  penalties,  and  every  ship  owner  was 
required  to  give  bond  to  the  amount  of  £50  for  observing 

1  By  the  terms  of  the  act  this  duty  was  to  continue  three  years. 
Hening,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  193 ;  Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections,  new 
series,    vi,    p.    10.     All    enactments   which    increased    the    duties    were 
ve'oed  by  the  crown. 

2  Hening,  op.  cit.,  Hi,  p.  482;   Letters  of  Governor  Spotswood,  in 
Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections,  new  series,  i,  p.  52;  Ballagh, 
op.  cit.,  p.  14. 


236  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [488 

it.1  New  Hampshire,  in  1714,  levied  the  heavy  duty  of  £10 
on  the  importation  of  any  Indian  into  the  province.2 

Pennsylvania,  also,  June  7,  1712,  voted  to  levy  a  duty  of 
£20  on  all  negroes  and  Indians  brought  into  the  colony  by 
land  or  water,  certain  negroes  from  the  West  Indies  ex- 
cepted.  Exception  was  also  made  in  the  case  of  negro  and 
Indian  slaves  brought  in  by  their  owners  with  the  intention 
of  taking  them  out  again  within  the  space  of  twenty  days, 
and  in  the  case  of  Indians  or  negroes  belonging  to 
persons  in  the  province  and  sent  out  of  it  on  their  masters' 
business  with  intent  to  return  again.8 

A  duty  of  £10  was  levied  by  New  Jersey  in  1713.* 
In  January,  1739,  the  New  Jersey  assembly  presented 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Is'and  and  Providence  Plantat'ons, 
iv»  P  !34-  Exceptions  were  sometimes  made  to  this  law.  During 
the  Yamasee  War  in  South  Carolina,  many  of  the  planters  left  the 
colony.  Several  ladies  came  to  Rhode  Island  bringing  with  them 
their  Indian  slaves.  On  their  petition,  the  assembly  voted,  June  13, 
1715,  to  relieve  them  from  the  import  duties  on  their  slaves.  Arnold, 
0/>.  cit.,  ii,  p.  55 ;  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Pro- 
vidence Plantations,  iv,  p.  186.  A  similar  instance  occurred  in  August 
of  the  same  year.  Arnold,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  57 ;  Records  of  the  Colony 
of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  iv,  p.  197. 

8  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1711,  p.  53.  Since  New  Hamp- 
shire did  not  afford  as  ready  a  market  for  the  sale  of  the  southern 
Indians,  because  of  its  small  population,  the  duty  was  doubtless  more 
nearly  prohibitive  than  in  ihe  case  of  Rhode  Island. 

8  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  ii,  pp.  433,  et  seq.;  Pennsylvania 
Historical  Society  Memoirs,  i,  p.  389;  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  ii,  pp. 
112,  114;  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  ii,  pp.  550,  553.  A  special 
officer  was  appointed  to  have  charge  of  this  matter  of  imported  In- 
dians and  negroes,  and  given  special  d  rec  ions  regarding  the  duties 
of  his  office  The  act  was  repealed  by  the  crown,  February  20,  1714, 
Pennsyvania  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  546- 

4  Allinson,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey,  p.  31.  By  the  terms  of  the  act,  the  duty  was  to  continue  seven 
years,  beginning  June  I,  1714. 


489]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  237 

to  the  council  for  concurrence  a  bill  entitled  "  An  act  for 
laying  a  duty  on  negro,  Indian  and  mulatto  slaves  imported 
into  this  province."  *  The  bill  did  not  appeal  favorably  to 
the  council  and  was  rejected.2  The  reason  for  rejection 
was  the  need  of  laborers  in  the  province,  owing  to  the  de- 
crease in  the  number  of  white  indentured  servants,  and  the 
check  that  this  bill  would  give  to  the  importation  of 
negroes.3  But  in  November,  1769,  a  bill  setting  forth  as 
its  purpose  the  encouragement  of  the  coming  of  white  ser- 
vants by  limiting  the  importation  of  blacks,  was  passed. 
The  duty  in  this  case  was  higher  than  that  proposed  in 
1739,  being  £15  on  all  slaves  imported,  negro,  Indian  or 
mulatto.  Punishment  for  refusal  or  neglect  to  pay  was 
specified.  Purchase  of  a  slave  "  made  upon  the  Water  or 
Waters  along  the  Seacoast "  of  the  province,  or  on  those 
between  the  province  and  the  provinces  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania  and  the  Lower  Counties  of  the  Delaware, 
was,  by  section  VII  of  the  act,  declared  a  "  purchase  within 
the  county  "of  New  Jersey  "  opposite  to  such  Water  ",  and 
so  was  exempt  from  duty.4 

The  second  cause  for  levying  duties  on  Indians  and  other 
slaves  was  to  obtain  revenue.  Virginia  in  its  legislation  on 
the  subject  had  pretended  at  least  that  such  was  its  pur- 
pose, and  to  carry  out  the  pretense  had  devoted  the  amounts 
thus  obtained  to  meeting  colonial  expenses.5  Other  colo- 
nies sought  directly  for  revenue.6  New  York  was  a  strik- 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  first  series,  xv,  p.  30. 

1  Ibid.,  first  series,  xv,  p.  351.       8  Ibid.,  first  series,  xv,  pp.  384,  385. 

4  Allinson,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey,  p.  315. 

5  Ballagh,  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 

6  Pennsylvania,  January  12,  1706,  passed  an  act  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  government  expenses.     Negroes  were  enumerated  among  the 
commodities  on  which  duties  were  laid.      No  mention  was  made  of 
Indians.     Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  ii,  p.  280. 


238  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [490 

ing  example  of  such  colonies.  Import  duties  formed  a 
chief  source  of  the  colonial  revenue,  and  slaves  were  enu- 
merated among  the  other  commodities.  The  act  of  May  i, 
1702,  the  first  specifically  to  mention  Indian  slaves,  placed 
a  duty  of  fifteen  shillings  on  every  negro  or  Indian  slave 
imported  into  the  colony  directly  from  their  place  of  resi- 
dence, and  thirty  shillings  upon  every  negro  or  Indian 
slave  not  so  imported.1  The  act  which  was  to  continue  but 
two  years  was  found  to  be  "  of  great  use  in  this  colony  " 
and  was  accordingly  repeated  on  August  4,  1705,  to  con- 
tinue seven  years.2  On  June  24,  1719,  it  was  again  re- 
peated to  remain  in  effect  from  July  i,  1720,  to  July  i, 
I726.3  Still  other  acts  imposing  similar  duties  were  passed 
as  follows:  in  1709,  levying  a  duty  of  £3  on  every  negro 
imported  into  the  colony  not  directly  from  Africa  and  £3 
on  every  other  slave  or  slaves  not  directly  imported  into 
the  colony  from  Africa,  the  act  to  continue  till  May  i, 
1711  ;4  on  June  21,  1714,  levying  "  a  duty  of  ten  ounces  of 
good  plate  "  to  be  paid  by  the  master  or  commander  of 
any  vessel,  or  any  other  person  importing  slaves ; 5  and  on 
September  i,  1716,  levying  a  duty  of  "ten  ounces 
of  good  plate "  on  each  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto 
slave  imported  into  the  colony  from  Africa  in  any  ves- 
sel not  wholly  owned  by  the  people  of  the  colony,  and 
a  like  duty  on  every  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto  slave  im- 
ported into  the  colony  from  any  part  of  the  West  Indies 
or  any  of  the  neighboring  colonies,  negroes  or  other  slaves 
going  to  and  fro  on  their  owners'  business  excepted.6  On 

1  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i,  pp  484,  487. 
*  Ibid.,  i,  p.  588.  8  Ibid.,  i,  p.  1013. 

4  Ibid.,  i,  p.  677.     On  October  n,  1709,  the  act  was  amended  with 
regard  to  its  enforcement.    Ibid.,  i,  p.  736. 
6  Ibid ,  i.  p.  803. 
6  Ibid.,  i,  p.  899. 


49I]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  -39 

October  16,  1718,  furthermore,  it  was  decreed  that  no 
greater  duty  was  to  be  demanded  on  any  slave  brought  into 
the  colony  directly  from  Africa  by  a  ship  of  Great  Britain, 
than  was  to  be  demanded  from  vessels  wholly  owned  by 
inhabitants  of  the  colony.1  In  June  17,  1726,  on  every 
Indian,  negro  or  mulatto  slave  (male  or  female)  of  four 
years  of  age  or  upwards  imported  by  land  or  water  from 
all  places  other  than  Africa,  a  duty  of  £4  was  laid.2  On 
October  14,  1732,  a  similar  duty,  regardless  of  the  place 
from  which  the  slave  was  imported,  was  laid.3  On  No- 
vember 28,  1734,  on  every  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto  slave 
above  the  age  of  fourteen  and  under  the  age  of  fifty,  dur- 
ing the  period  of  ten  years,  the  duty  was  fixed  at  "  the 
quantity  of  two  pennyweight  and  twelve  grains  of  Sivil 
pillar  or  Mexican  plate,  or  the  sum  of  one  shilling  in  Bills 
of  Credit  made  current  in  this  colony."  4  On  December 
1  6,  1737,  finally,  every  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto  slave  above 
the  age  of  four  years  imported  directly  from  Africa  was 
made  dutiable  at  the  rate  of  five  ounces  of  "  Sivil  pillar  or 
Mexican  plate  "  or  forty  shillings  in  bills  of  credit  current 
in  the  colony;  and  for  every  such  slave  imported  from  all 
other  places  by  land  or  water,  the  sum  of  £4  in  like  money 
was  exacted.5  All  slaves  belonging  to  the  crew  of 
any  vessel,  and  slaves  coming  into  the  colony  from  the 
neighboring  colonies  upon  the  service  of  their  masters,  and 
all  slaves  under  fourteen  years  of  age  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty.6  Any  person  coming  into  the  col- 
ony alone,  or  with  his  or  her  family  to  reside  or  visit  in 
the  colony,  was  allowed  to  bring  slaves  for  personal  ser- 


1  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i.  P- 
8  Ib'd..  ii,  pp.  255,  310.  *lbid.,  ii,  p.  772. 

4  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  877.  6  Ibid.-  ii,  p.  1048. 

6  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  1049. 


240  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [492 

vice,  provided  the  owner  gave  sufficient  security  to  the 
treasurer  within  four  days  after  the  importation  thereof, 
that,  whenever  such  slaves  should  be  sold,  the  duty  imposed 
by  the  act  should  be  paid  within  two  days  after  such  sale. 
Upon  failure  to  pay  such  duty,  the  owner  or  disposer 
of  such  slaves  was  to  forfeit  the  sum  of  £10,  the  slave 
or  slaves,  nevertheless,  to  be  subject  to  the  duty  in  ques- 
tion. The  duties  provided  for  by  the  act  were  to  remain 
in  existence  for  the  period  of  one  year.1  At  the  expiration 
of  the  act  it  was  continued  for  another  year,  with  certain 
amendments  which  did  not  relate  to  slaves.2  At  the  ex- 
piration of  the  specified  period  it  was  again  continued  for 
another  year  or  until  the  close  of  I74O,8  when  it  was  again 
continued  until  December,  1741.*  Such  acts  were  then 
passed  by  New  York  each  year  until  the  opening  of  the 
troubles  of  the  Revolutionary  period.5 

The  number  of  Indians  exported  as  slaves  from  South 
Carolina  was  larger  than  that  from  any  other  colony.  As 
a  means  of  obtaining  revenue,  as  well  as  of  attempting  to 
check  the  business  of  the  Indian  traders,  the  colony  passed 
an  act  in  1703  which  placed  a  duty  upon  Indian  slaves  ex- 

1  New   York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of   1894,  ii,  p.   1049.    The  act 
also  provided  technical  arrangements   for  set  ling  disputes  regarding 
the  ages  of  the  slaves,  the  exemption  from  duty  if  the  slave  should 
die  within  a  period  of  thirty  days  after  arrival,  the  receipt  issued  for 
such  duty  by  the  treasurer,  and  precautions  to  prevent  smuggling. 

2  ibid.,  iii,  p.  2. 

3  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  32. 

4  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  88. 

5  Ibid.,  iii  and  iv.     New  York,  like  Virginia,  sought  to  avoid  the  veto 
of  the  home  government  to  these  laws  by  giving  them  a  short  term 
of  existence,  usually  one  year.     And  generally  New  York  was  more 
successful  than  Virginia.     But  the  home  government  was  not  always 
satisfied  by  such   provisions   as  is  witnessed  by  the   Privy   Council's 
rejection  of  the  act  of  1735  levying  a  duty  on  negro  and  Indian  slaves. 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vi,  p.  33. 


493]  PROPERTY  RELATIONS  241 

ported  from  the  colony.1  The  traders  were  carefully  in- 
structed not  to  attempt  any  such  exportations  without  first 
paying  at  Charleston  the  required  duties,  twenty  shillings 
for  each  Indian  exported.2 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  ii,  p.  201.  Duties  were 
also  levied  by  the  act  upon  skins  and  furs. 

1  Indian  Book,  1710-1718,  in  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  Historical 
Commission  Department,  i,  p.  19. 


CHAPTER  X 
METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT 

SINCE  the  English  never  made  long  journeys  of  explor- 
ation into  the  interior,  as  the  Spanish  and  French  did  in 
the  earliest  days  of  their  occupation  of  America,  their  use 
of  Indian  slaves  as  hunters,  fishermen  and  guides  was  rela- 
tively limited.  With  the  forming  of  settlements  and  the 
growth  of  institutional  life  this  use  became  more  promi- 
nent. In  Carolina  it  appears  that  the  Indian  slaves  were 
occupied  chiefly  in  hunting  and  fishing  for  their  masters, 
whereas  the  greater  part  of  the  harder  field  work  was  left 
to  the  negroes.1  The  Indians  were  expert  hunters,  and  as 
the  woods  abounded  in  game,  such  a  hunter  "  was  of  great 
service  in  a  plantation,  and  could  furnish  a  family  with 
more  provisions  than  they  could  consume  ".2  In  New  Eng- 
land, also,  there  is  occasional  mention  of  Indian  slaves  used 
as  guides.3  It  seems  probable,  however,  that  this  service 
was  more  largely  confined  to  the  south  where  Indian  slaves 
were  less  expensive  and  more  easily  procured  than  in  the 
north,  for  such  an  occupation  offered  more  opportunity  for 
escape  than  any  other. 

In  New  England  the  Indians  retained  in  the  colonies  as 

1  Hawks,  History  of  North  Caro'hia,  etc.,  second  edition,  ii,  p.  229; 
Brickell,  The  Natural  History  of  North  Carolina,  etc ,  p.  42 

2  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  128;  Schaper,  Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina, 
p.  283. 

8  Cotton  Mather  kept  an  Indian  prisoner  to  serve  as  a  guide.    Mag- 
nolia, edition  of  1820,  ii,  p.  507. 

242  [494 


495]  METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  243 

slaves  after  the  Pequot  and  King  Philip  Wars  were  chiefly 
women  and  children.  In  the  early  history  of  Massachusetts 
some  of  the  leading  families  in  wealth  and  importance  un- 
able to  obtain  other  help,  employed  Indians  as  cooks.1  After 
the  wars  in  question  the  Indian  slaves  were  put  to  the  same 
use  by  both  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.2 

The  colonial  newspapers  of  New  England  attribute  much 
domestic  ability  to  the  Indian  slaves  advertised  in  their  col- 
umns :  "  An  Indian  woman  who  is  a  very  good  cook,  and 
can  wash,  iron  and  sew  " ; 3  "A  likely  Indian  wench  about 
nineteen  years  of  age  fit  for  any  business  in  town  or  coun- 
try "; 4  "  An  Indian  woman  ...  fit  for  all  manner  of 
household  work  either  in  town  or  country,  can  sew,  wash, 
brew,  bake,  spin  and  milk  cows  " ; 5  "A  lusty  Carolina  In- 
dian woman  fit  for  any  daily  service  ".6  The  newspapers 
of  the  middle  colonies  furnish  a  similar  record :  "  A  young 
Spanish  Indian  woman,  fit  for  all  manner  of  household 
business  " ; 7  "  An  Indian  woman  and  her  child  .  .  .  she 
washes,  irons  and  starches  very  well,  and  is  a  good  cook  ".8 

1  Lyford,  History  of  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  from  the  Original 
Grant,  etc.,  ii,  p.  1051 ;  Goodwin,  The  Pilgrim  Republic,  p.  191. 

*  One  of  these  Indians  who  became  a  slave  in  the  family  of  Mr. 
Richard  Calicott  of  Dorchester,  was  afterward  the  tutor  of  John  Eliot 
when  the  latter  was  learning  the  Indian  language  in  prepara  ion  for 
his  missionary  work.  Winslow,  The  Glorious  Progresse  of  the  Gos- 
pel among  the  Indians  of  New  England,  etc.,  in  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society  Collections,  series,  3,  iv,  p.  90;  Tooker,  Cockenoe- 
de-Long-Island,  p.  12. 

3  Boston  Gazette  or  Weekly  Journal,  November  15,  1748. 

4  New  England  Weekly  Journal,  March  5,  1733. 

5  Boston  News  Letter,  January  5,  1719. 

6  Boston  News  Letter,  November  15,  1708. 

7  Pennsy'z'ania  Gazette,  March  7  and  March  16,  1732. 

8  American  Weekly  Mercury,  Apr  1  10,  1729.     In  1715.  Massachusetts 
granted  an  exception   to  the  law  against  the  importation  of   Indian 


244  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [496 

The  agricultural  system  of  New  England  was  not  favor- 
able to  the  use  of  slaves  in  the  fields,  yet  there  are  occa- 
sional glimpses  of  Indian  slaves  employed  in  agricultural 
pursuits.  In  the  account  book  of  Lieutenant  Stephen  Long- 
fellow, 1710,  appears  the  item:  "Houston  one  day  to  plant". 
Bouston  was  his  Indian  slave.1  It  has  been  considered 
probable,  judging  from  the  number  of  negro  and  Indian 
slaves  in  Rhode  Island,  that  both  were  an  important  factor 
in  developing  the  stock  farming  of  the  colony.2  The  news- 
paper advertisements  of  the  day  offer  some  information  on 
this  point :  "  A  Carolina  Indian  man  fit  for  any  service 
within  doors  or  without  " ; 3  "  An  Indian  boy  about  sixteen 
years  old,  fit  for  either  sea  or  land  service  " ; 4  "  An  In- 
dian man  ...  fit  for  any  service  " ; 5  "A  Survanam  In- 
dian man,  twenty-five  years  of  age,  who  has  been  in  the 
country  thirteen  years,  fit  for  service  in  either  country  or 
town,  and  who  can  mow  well  ".6 

In  all  the  southern  colonies  Indian  slaves  worked  in  the 
fields  side  by  side  with  the  negroes  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Revolution.7  The  discovery,  about  1693,  of  rice  as  a  profit- 
able staple  for  export,  made  necessary  a  large  supply  of 
labor  in  South  Carolina;  hence  along  with  the  negroes  so 
largely  imported  to  meet  the  demand,  the  Indian  slaves 

slaves  to  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  so  that  his  Indian  slave 
attendant  might  accompany  his  family  to  Massachusetts.  Acts  and  Re- 
solves, ix,  p.  412. 

1  Ewell,  The  Story  of  Byfield,  p.  8& 

1  Channing,  The  Narragansett  Planters,  p.  10,  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  iv. 

•  Boston  News  Letter,  March  u,  1717. 
4  Boston  News  Letter,  April  12,  1714. 

*  Boston  News  Letter,  May  24,  1714. 

0  Boston  News  Letter,  June  18  and  June  25,  1724. 

1  Nineteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 
1897-1898,  p.  233. 


METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  24$ 

worked  also  as  the  plantation  system  grew.  In  South  Caro- 
lina, Governor  Moore  employed  some  of  his  Indian  slaves 
in  tilling  his  fields.1 

The  instances  of  Indian  slaves  employed  by  their  owners 
in  manual  occupations  are  more  numerous  in  New  Eng- 
land than  elsewhere.  The  newspapers  furnish  instances 
like  the  following :  "  An  Indian  lad  about  eighteen  years 
old,  a  cooper  by  trade  "  2  ".  .  .  can  do  anything  at  the  car- 
penter's trade  " ; 3  "  An  Indian  lad  ...  he  can  work  at  the 
weaver's  trade  ".4  Similar  advertisements  are  found  in 
the  New  York  papers :  "  An  Indian  man  ...  a  good  car- 
penter, wheelwright,  cooper  and  butcher  ".6 

Such  instances  are  to  be  found  even  in  the  south.6  The 
training  of  Indian  slaves  to  skilled  labor  was  not  gener- 
ally considered  politic,  however,  since  it  interfered  with 
the  coming  to  the  colonies  of  white  craftsmen  who  were  so 
much  desired.  In  1743  or  1744,  a  committee  in  South 
Carolina,  appointed  to  consider  the  most  effectual  means 
of  increasing  immigration  to  the  province,  included  in  the 
bill  which  it  originated,  a  clause  prohibiting  the  bringing 
up  of  negroes  and  other  slaves  to  those  mechanical  trades  in 
which  white  persons  are  usually  employed.7 

Indian  slaves  were  made  a  source  of  income  to  their 
owners  by  hiring  them  out  to  work  in  the  same  way  as 
negroes  and  indentured  white  servants.  The  colonial  laws 
in  some  instances  made  provision  for  such  use.  A  South 

1  Hewat,  o{>.  cit.,  i,  p.  157. 

*  Boston  News  Letter,  March  21,  1715. 
8  Boston  News  Letter,  July  23,  1716. 

4  Boston  Post  Boy,  May  2,  1743. 

1  New  York  Gazette,  June  24,  1734. 

8  Lawson,  A  New  Voyage  to  Carolina,  etc.,  p.  172. 

*  Public  Records  of  South  Carolina,  xxi,   1743-1744,  p.  333;  B.  P. 
R.  O.,  S.  C.,  B.  T.,  vol.  xiii,  H.,  p.  36. 


246  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [498 

Carolina  law  of  1712  permitted  an  owner  to  hire  out  his 
slaves  by  the  year  or  for  a  shorter  time,  and  receive  their 
earnings.1  The  provision  was  repeated  in  acts  of  1735  2 
and  I74O.3  Maryland,  in  1753,  provided  that  masters  of 
ships  might  hire  servants  or  slaves  from  their  owners.4 
New  York  City,  in  1731,  made  provision  for  owners  hiring 
out  negro  and  Indian  slaves.5  Since  the  custom  was  com- 
mon in  its  application  to  other  servile  classes,  one  may  be- 
lieve that  it  was  followed  in  other  colonies  besides  those 
which  made  legal  provision  regarding  it. 

The  use  of  Indian  slaves  in  military  operations  was  not 
infrequent.  In  the  New  England  wars  Captain  Church 
employed  Indian  captives  against  the  enemy,  a  plan  which 
he  found  serviceable  on  several  occasions.6  This  use  of 
Indian  as  well  as  negro  slaves  for  military  purposes  was 
advocated  in  1666  in  a  narrative  addressed  to  the  Duke  of 
Albemarle.7 

In  the  intercolonial  wars  both  negro  and  Indian  slaves 
were  captured  by  the  French  from  the  English  army.  In 
French  records  dealing  with  occurrences  in  Canada,  under 
date  of  November  n,  1747,  "four  negroes  and  a  Panis 
who  were  captured  from  the  English  during  the  war 
.  .  .  ."  are  mentioned.8  Still  another  possible  proof  of  the 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  363. 

*  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  393. 

*  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  409. 

4  Bacon,  Law s  of  Maryland. 

8  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  iv,  p.  85. 

*  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  iv,  p.  188. 

7  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  v,  p.  361. 

8  Northrup,  Slavery  in  New  York,  in  New  York  State  Library  Bul- 
letin, History,   1900,  No.  4.    The  French  considered  these  slaves  as 
spoils  of  war  which  became  the  property  of  the  captors  exactly  as  if 
they  were  guns  or  any  other  implements.     They  were  sent  to  "  Mon- 
tinisco"  (Martinique)  and  sold  there  for  the  benefit  of  the  planters. 


499]  METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  247 

use  of  Indian  slaves  by  the  English  army  is  found  in  the 
Articles  of  Peace  drawn  up  at  Niagara,  July  18,  1764. 
They  contain  the  following :  "  Article  2nd.  That  any  Eng- 
lish who  may  be  prisoners  or  deserters,  and  any  negroes, 
Panis,  or  other  slaves  who  are  British  property,  shall  be 
delivered  up  within  a  month  to  the  commandant  of  Detroit, 
and  that  the  Hurons  use  all  possible  endeavors  to  get  those 
who  are  in  the  hands  of  the  neighboring  nations,  engaging 
never  to  entertain  any  deserters,  fugitives  or  slaves,  but 
should  any  fly  to  them  for  protection,  they  are  to  deliver 
them  up  to  the  next  commanding  officer." 

That  such  slaves  were  put  to  practical  use  in  the  military 
preparations  of  the  colonies,  is  seen  in  the  New  York  City 
ordinances  of  1693  an<^  J^94  which  provided  that  all  per- 
sons, and  all  negro  and  Indian  slaves  that  were  not  listed, 
should  work  on  the  fortifications.2  Such  a  town  action 
was  not  unusual.  In  1638,  the  townsmen  of  Hartford,  Con- 
necticut, voted  to  levy  on  the  cattle  and  slaves  of  the  towns- 
people when  needed  for  public  service.8 

South  Carolina  on  different  occasions  offered  induce- 
ments for  slaves  to  serve  in  the  war.  Some  of  these  acts 
mentioned  Indian  slaves.  In  1704,  an  act  was  passed  "for 
raising  and  enlisting  such  slaves  as  shall  be  thought  ser- 
viceable to  this  province  in  time  of  alarms  ".  It  provided 
for  making  a  list  of  all  negro,  mulatto  and  Indian  slaves  in 
the  province  fit  for  service.  The  masters  of  the  slaves 
were  to  be  notified  of  such  listing  and  given  a  chance  to 
show  cause  why  it  should  not  be  done.  In  case  the  slaves 
were  called  upon  for  service,  the  master  must  furnish 

1  Northrup,  op.  cit.,  in  New  York  State  Library  Bulletin,  History, 
May,  1900,  No.  4. 

a  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  i,  pp. 
329,  354- 

3  Porter,  Historical  Notes  of  Connecticut,  No.  2,  p.  13. 


248  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [500 

weapons  according  to  specifications.  If  the  slave  were 
maimed  or  killed  in  the  service,  the  owner  should  be  com- 
pensated out  of  the  public  treasury.1 

To  provide  still  further  for  the  use  of  slaves  in  war,  it 
was  decreed  by  a  South  Carolina  act  of  1719  that  the  cap- 
tains, lieutenants,  and  ensigns  of  the  militia  companies 
should  form  a  list  of  negro,  mulatto,  mustee  and  Indian 
slaves  from  sixteen  to  sixty  years  of  age  fit  for  military 
service.  Owners  were  given  a  chance  to  show  why  such 
slaves  should  not  serve.  These  slaves  when  enlisted  were 
to  be  armed  and  equipped  by  the  captain  of  the  division, 
or  they  might  be  armed  by  their  owners,  the  latter  to  be 
compensated  for  loss  or  damage  to  their  arms.  A  fine  of 
£20  was  fixed  for  neglect  of  any  owner  to  send  his  slave 
in  time  of  alarm  to  the  usual  place  of  rendezvous  of  the 
various  divisions.  Any  officer  neglecting  to  carry  out  the 
terms  of  the  act  was  to  be  fined  £5.  A  slave  serving  in 
war  was  to  be  allowed  £10  reward  if,  on  the  testimony  of  a 
white  person,  he  could  prove  that  he  had  killed  one  of  the 
enemy  in  time  of  invasion.  The  owner  was  to  be  indemni- 
fied from  the  public  funds  for  a  slave  killed  or  wounded.2 

In  1778,  when  Washington  proposed  to  enlist  slaves  in  the 
battalions  raised  by  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  the  assem- 
bly voted  that  every  able  bodied  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian 
man  slave  in  the  state  might  enlist  in  either  battalion  to 
serve  during  the  continuance  of  the  war.  Such  slave  was 
to  receive  all  the  bounties,  wages  and  encouragements  al- 
lowed by  the  Continental  Congress  to  any  soldier  enlisting 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  347. 

2  Ibid ,    iii,    p.    109.     South    Carolina,    however,    did    not    favor    the 
traders  using  their  Indian  slaves  to  wage  war  w  thout  the  authority  of 
the  colonial   governmen\    Among  the  instructions  given  the  traders 
was  this  one:  "You  shall  not  permit  or  allow  any  of  your  slaves  to 
go  to  war  on  any  pretence  whatever."    Indian  Book,  1710-1718,  Colum- 
bia, South  Carolina  Historical  Commission  Department,  i,  p.  19. 


5OI]  METHODS  OF  EMPLOYMENT  249 

in  the  service,  and  in  addition  was  immediately  to  be  set 
free.1 

It  is  noticeable  that  in  this  legislation  regarding  the  use 
of  slaves  in  war,  no  provision  was  made  for  their  military 
training.  Such  training  would  require  too  much  time, 
and  besides  being  a  loss  to  the  owners,  might  prove 
dangerous  to  the  colony  if  the  slaves  were  sufficiently 
numerous.  Maryland  recognized  this  fact  and  in  1715 
voted  to  exclude  slaves  from  such  training.2 

.  Just  as  the  Spanish  and  the  French  made  diplomatic  and 
military  use  of  their  Indian  slaves  by  returning  them  to 
their  own  tribes  and  thus  winnii'g  friendship  and  peace, 
so  the  English  followed  the  same  practice.  In  1715,  in 
order  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  Tuscarora,  the  assembly  of 
South  Carolina  voted  that,  for  every  one  of  these  allies 
killed  in  actual  warfare  by  the  enemy,  a  Tuscarora  slave 
then  in  servitude  among  the  whites  should  be  given  them 
for  the  loss,  and  that  to  every  Tuscarora  taking  an  Indian 
enemy  captive,  a  slave  of  his  nation  should  similarly  be  as- 
signed as  a  reward.3 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
viii,  pp.  359-36i. 
'  Bacon,  Laws  of  Maryland. 
8  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  ii,  p.  636. 


CHAPTER  XI 

TREATMENT 

THE  treatment  of  Indian  slaves  apparently  differed  in 
no  essential  degree  from  that  of  the  negroes.  The  slaves  of 
the  two  races  lived  and  worked  together ;  but  since  the  negroes 
were  in  the  majority,  the  treatment  of  slaves  in  general  was 
determined  by  the  ordinary  usage  which  the  whites  accord- 
ed them  in  particular.  It  is  customary  for  writers  dealing 
with  early  slavery  among  both  the  English  and  French  of 
America  to  declare  it  mild  in  nature.1  The  statement  ap- 
pears to  be  true.  The  system  was  patriarchal  in  nature, 
though  it  is  doubtful  if  race  feeling  among  the  English 
was  ever  so  nearly  obliterated,  and  a  condition  of  fellow- 
ship approaching  equality  ever  so  fully  developed,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  French.  Individual  cases  of  cruelty  and  harsh 
treatment  undoubtedly  existed  as  they  must  exist  in  all  cases 
of  servitude ;  but  Indian  slavery  never  became  an  institution 
sufficiently  well  organized  to  make  harsh  treatment  general. 
There  was  never  anything  in  either  the  English  or  French 
colonies  corresponding  to  the  labor  gang  used  by  the  Span- 
ish. The  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  a  locality  was  too 
small  for  that;  nor  did  the  service  which  the  colonists  re- 
quired of  their  Indian  slaves  demand  it.  Kind  treatment. 

• 1  Usher,  History  of  the  Town  of  Medford,  Middlesex  County,  Massa- 
chusetts, etc.,  p.  352;  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society. 
1885-1887,  new   series,  iv,   p.   214;    Field,   Provincial   Courts   of  New 
Jersey,  pp.  130-131;  Washburn,  Historical  Sketches  of  Leicester,  p.  51. 
250  [502 


503]  TREATMENT  251 

however,  did  not  exclude  the  infliction  of  corporal  punish- 
ment, if  thought  needful.1 

To  judge  from  the  frequent  newspaper  advertisements 
of  runaways,  the  Indian  slaves  of  the  English  colonists 
were  at  least  comfortably  dressed.  The  following  are 
typical  extracts  from  the  newspapers  of  the  various  colo- 
nies: "  a  black  crape  gown  and  a  striped  stuff  jacket ";  "a 
blue  flannel  petticoat,  a  dark  Estamine  gown  and  a  double 
striped  gown  "•; 2  "  a  grey  coat  with  pewter  buttons,  with 
leather  breeches,  an  old  tow  shirt,  grey  stockings,  good 
shoes  and  felt  hat  " ; 3  "a  green  hat  and  yellow  breeches" ; 4 
"  an  orange  colored  broadcloth  coat,  with  a  narrow  cape, 
and  a  flannel  jacket  with  narrow  stripes,  a  cotton  shirt,  and 
a  loose  pair  of  Oxenbridge  trousers  ...  a  beaver  hat, 
and  had  a  bundle  of  clothes  with  him" ; 5  "an  old  blue  coat, 
striped  flannel  jacket,  pretty  good  hat,  black  wig,  linen 
trousers,  white  yarn  stockings,  and  an  old  pair  of  mended 
shoes";6  "a  good  felt  hat,  orange  colored  jacket,  thick 
leather  breeches,  checked  wool  shirt,  light  grey  stockings 
and  pretty  good  shoes " ; 7  "  pea-jacket  of  light  brown, 
leather  breeches,  shoes,  stockings  and  hat " ; s  "a  drugat 
waistcoat  and  kersey  petticoat  of  a  light  color  ".9  From 
these  advertisements  it  appears  that  the  slaves  were  dressed 

1  It  is  recorded  of  the  Rev.  Peter  Thacher  of  Milton,  Massachusetts, 
in  1679,  that  he  beat  his  Indian  slave  severely  for  letting  his  daughter, 
Theodora,  fall  on  her  head.  Earle,  Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New 
England,  p.  84;  Sheldon,  History  of  DeeHie'd,  ii,  p.  888. 

*  Boston  Gazette,  April  7,  1718. 

*  Boston  News  Letter,  October  4,  1739. 

4  Boston  News  Letter,  May  23,  1745. 

5  Boston  News  Letter,  October  30,  1760. 

6  Boston  Post  Boy,  July  6,  1752. 

1  Boston  Weekly  Mercury,  October  2,  1735. 

8  American  Weekly  Mercury,  August  28,  1729. 

9  American  Weekly  Mercury,  May  24,  1726. 


252  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [504 

much  like  the  colonists  themselves,  though  doubtless  their 
clothing  often  consisted  of  "  cast  offs  ".  In  the  Carolinas 
where  slaves  were  more  numerous,  coarse  goods  were  im- 
ported by  the  planters  for  slaves'  clothing.  Mention  is 
found  of  "  serge  suits  for  the  servant  maids,  of  coarse  ker- 
seys, tufted  holland  jackets,  etc.",  with  which  the  planta- 
tion was  wont  to  be  supplied  for  the  slaves  and  convict  ser- 
vants. These  were  used  in  addition  to  cloth  woven  and 
made  into  clothes  by  the  women  of  the  household.1 

Generally  kind  as  the  treatment  of  Indian  slaves  may 
have  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  English  colonists  was  quite 
opposed  to  the  intermingling  of  whites  and  Indians,  bond 
or  free,  even  if  in  the  early  history  of  Virginia  there  was 
some  effort  made  to  encourage  the  marriage  of  whites  and 
free  Indians.2  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  definite  action 
should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  marriage  of  free  whites  and 
Indian  slaves.  In  1691,  Virginia  passed  an  act  forbidding  the 
union  of  free  whites  with  Indians  whether  slave  or  free; 
but  there  seems  to  have  been  no  provision  against  marriage 
of  negroes  or  Indians  with  white  indentured  servants. s 
The  provision,  perhaps,  was  unnecessary,  for  the  consent 
of  the  white  indentured  servant's  master  was  necessary  for 
the  validity  of  such  a  union,  and  such  consent  was  usually 
refused  because  of  the  strong  prejudice  against  race  mix- 
ture.4 

1  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  etc.,  second  edition,  ii,  p.  577. 

8  The  Rev.  Peter  Fontaine  advocated  intermarriage  with  the  Indians 
as  a  means  of  promoting  their  Christian:za  ion  and  civilization. 
Colonel  Byrd  favored  the  plan  also.  Meade,  Old  Churches,  Ministers 
and  Families  of  Virginia,  i,  pp.  82,  283-285. 

*  Hening,  op.  cff,  iii,  p.  87.  The  act  also  forbade  the  marrage  of 
free  whites  and  mulattoes  or  negroes  bond  or  free.  Banishment  was 
the  punishment  for  such  a  marriage. 

4  Bruce,  The  Economic  History  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth 
Century,  ii,  p.  38. 


505]  TREATMENT  253 

North  Carolina,  also,  in  1715,  passed  an  act  forbidding 
the  marriage  of  whites  with  negroes,  mulattoes  or  Indians, 
under  penalty  of  £50,  and  making  clergymen  celebrating 
such  a  marriage  liable  to  a  fine  of  £50.*  A  later  act  of  1741 
provided  a  fine  of  £50  for  the  marriage  of  any  white  man 
or  woman  with  an  Indian,  negro,  mustee,  mulatto,  or  any 
person  of  mixed  blood  to  the  third  generation,  bond  or  free. 
Any  minister  or  justice  of  the  peace  performing  such  a 
service  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  £5O.2  Maryland,  on  its 
own  part,  in  1692,  passed  an  act  against  the  marriage  or 
promiscuous  sexual  relations  of  whites  and  negroes  or 
other  slaves.  Any  white  person  so  offending  was  to  be- 
come a  servant  for  seven  years,  if  free  at  the  time  of  the 
marriage.  If  already  a  servant,  he  or  she  must  serve  seven 
years  after  the  end  of  the  present  term  of  service.3 

The  same  feeling  existed  in  New  England.  A  Massa- 
chusetts act  of  1692  forbade  the  marriage,  under  severe 
penalty,  of  any  white  person  with  a  negro,  Indian  or  mu- 
latto. Mixed  marriages  of  whites  and  Indians,  like  those 
admired  by  Sewall  in  1/02,*  did  occur,  however,  in  New 
England,5  and  it  appears  probable  that  some  of  these  mar- 
riages were  with  the  enslaved  captives  of  King  Philip's 
War  and  the  Indian  slaves  imported  from  Carolina. 

Considering,  further,  the  determination  of  legal  relations 
between  the  whites  and  the  Indian  slaves,  it  should  be  re- 
membered that,  when  not  specifically  referred  to,  Indian 
slaves  were  included  by  implication  in  the  legislative  acts  of 
the  various  colonies  relating  to  slaves.  Sufficient  proof  of 

1  Trott,  Laws  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America,  etc.,  p.  100. 

2  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, i,  pp.  45-46. 

*  Archives  of  Maryland,  xiii,  pp.  546-549. 

4  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  5,  vi,  p.  143. 

5  Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England,  i,  p.  403. 


254  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [506 

this  statement  lies  in  the  fact  that  Indian  slaves  are  directly 
mentioned  in  certain  of  the  legislative  acts  of  any  given  col- 
ony, whereas  other  acts  of  the  same  colony  specify  slaves, 
negroes  and  other  slaves,  or  negro  and  mulatto  slaves.1  In 
one  colony,  Virginia,  the  term  "  mulatto  "  was  made  to 
include  Indians  by  the  act  of  1705,  which  provided  that  the 
child  of  an  Indian  should  be  "deemed,  accounted,  held  and 
taken  to  be  a  mulatto."  2 

It  was  a  part  of  the  universal  law  of  slavery  in  the  south- 
ern colonies  that  a  slave  should  not  be  allowed  to  testify 
against  a  white  person  in  the  courts.3  South  Carolina,  by 
the  acts  of  1712,*  1722  5  and  1735, 6  permitted  "  negroes 
and  other  slaves  "  to  testify  in  the  trial  of  any  slave  accused 
of  specified  crimes  and  offenses.  Certain  of  the  colonies, 
by  express  provision,  forbade  Indian  slaves  to  give  testi- 
mony in  the  trial  of  whites.  North  Carolina  declared  that 
"  all  negroes,  mulattoes,  bond  and  free  to  the  third  genera- 
tion, and  Indian  servants  and  slaves,  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
taken  as  persons  incapable  in  law  to  be  witnesses  in  any 
case  whatever  except  against  each  other  ".7  Virginia, 

1  Bruce,  The  Economic  History  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, ii,  p.  130,  says  of  the  Indian  slaves  of  Virginia:  "  The  regulations 
established  for  the  management  of  such  slaves  were  practically  the  same 
as  those  in  operation  for  the  control  of  Africans.     They  were  brought 
within  the  scope  of  every  measure  adopted  for  the  protection  of  the 
negro  slaves,  and  morally  as  well  as  materially  s  ood  precisely  upon  the 
same    foo  ing   in    the   view   of   the   law."     McCrady,    Slavery   in    the 
Province    of   South    Carolina,   in    Annual   Report    of    the    American 
Historical  Association  for  1895,   P-  642,   states :   "  In   South   Carolina 
from  1690  onward,  all  acts  concerning  slaves  apply  to  Indians  as  well 
as  negroes." 

2  Hening,  off.  cit.t  iii,  p.  252. 

8  Bassett,  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  the  Co'ony  of  North  Carolina, 
p.  29,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiv. 
4  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p   357. 

*  Ibid.,  vii,  pp.  375-376.  *  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  389. 

*  Bassett,  op.  cit ,  pp.  29-30,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiv 


507]  TREATMENT  255 

1705,  decreed  that  "  popish  recusants,  convict  negroes,  mu- 
lattoes  and  Indian  servants  and  others  not  being  Christians, 
shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  persons  incapable  in  law  to 
be  witnesses  in  any  case  whatsoever  "-1  In  1732,  the  same 
colony  decreed  that  the  evidence  of  any  negro  or  Indian 
slave  might  be  received  in  the  trial  of  any  slave,  but  was 
not  valid  in  the  trial  of  any  other  person.2  Maryland  de- 
clared, in  1717,  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  allow  the  evi- 
dence of  any  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slave  in  the  trial  of 
a  freeman,  but  conceded  that,  if  evidence  was  lacking  in 
cases  regarding  any  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slaves,  that 
such  slaves  might  give  testimony  for  or  against  themselves 
and  one  another.3  In  some  of  the  northern  colonies,  at  least, 
acts  were  passed  forbidding  slaves  to  give  testimony  in  the 
trial  of  white  persons.  The  New  York  law  of  1706  is  a 
case  in  point.4  This  feature  of  the  law  of  evidence  was  re- 
newed from  time  to  time  in  the  various  colonies  and  con- 
tinued until  the  Revolution. 

The  right  to  life  was  generally  conceded  all  slaves  regard- 
less of  color.  At  least  one  colony,  New  Hampshire,  1708, 
in  an  act  guaranteeing  this  right,  included  Indian  slaves  by 
specific  mention.5  This  and  other  rights  could  be  protected 
by  appeal  to  the  courts.  If  not  otherwise  provided  for,  the 
mode  of  trial  used  by  the  colonists  themselves  was  em- 
ployed in  the  case  of  Indian  slaves,  negroes  and  free  In- 
dians.6 Special  legislation  concerning  the  trial  of  slaves 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  298. 

*  Ibid  ,  iv,  p.  327. 

*  Maxcy,  Laws  of  Maryland,  i,  p.  140. 

4  Hurd.  The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United  States, 
p.  281.  This  act  does  not  specifically  men' ion  Indian  slaves. 

6  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1771,  p.  101. 

6  Bruce,  The  Economic  History  of  Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, i,  p.  673. 


256  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [508 

was  enacted  by  all  the  English  colonies.  It  has  been  said 
that  for  an  Indian  to  gain  his  point  in  an  English  court, 
unless  his  case  was  an  extremely  strong  one,  was  a  rare 
occurrence.1  Whether  the  statement  is  generally  true  in  the 
case  of  either  free  or  slave  Indians,  might  be  difficult  to 
decide.  Doubtless  the  Indian  slave  supported  by  his  master 
possessed  a  better  chance  of  obtaining  justice  than  the  free 
Indian.  Since  a  slave  was  owned  body  and  soul,  and  there- 
fore had  no  right  to  life  except  as  the  same  might  be  con- 
ceded by  his  owner  and  the  authorities,  it  may  be  said  that 
whatever  legal  rights  he  had  were  granted  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  slave  owners  in  their  property  rights  and  for 
the  general  safety  of  the  community,  rather  than  because  of 
any  special  consideration  of  justice  toward  the  slave  him- 
self. 

Virginia,  in  1692,  provided  special  courts  for  the  trial  of 
slaves.2  The  provisions  regarding  these  courts  were  changed 
from  time  to  time.  By  the  act  of  1765  it  was  provided  that 
the  justices  be  given  a  standing  commission  of  oyer  and 
terminer  empowering  them  to  try  without  a  jury  all  crimi- 
nal offenses  committed  by  slaves  in  their  respective  coun- 
ties.3 In  accordance  with  thse  provisions  one  finds  the 
Earl  of  Dunmore  issuing  a  commission  in  1772  to  certain 
justices  in  the  county  of  the  present  state  of  West  Virginia, 
authorizing  them  to  serve  as  a  court  for  the  trial  of  negro 
and  Indian  slaves.4 

The  Massachusetts  general  court  provided,  1647,  that 
one  or  more  of  the  magistrates,  according  to  agreement 

1  Drake,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  ninth  edition,  bk.  iii,  p.  16. 

1  Chitwood,  Justice  in  Colonial  Virginia,  p.  99,  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  xxxiii. 

s  Hening,  op.  cit.,  vi'i,  pp.  137-138. 

4  Aler,  History  of  Martinsberg  and  Berkeley  Counties,  West  Vir- 
ginia, pp.  200,  201. 


509]  TREATMENT  257 

among  themselves,  should  hold  a  court  every  quarter  to 
hear  and  determine  all  cases  civil  and  criminal,  except  those 
involving  capital  punishment,  which  might  concern  Indians, 
and  that  minor  offenses  should  be  tried  by  the  sachems 
themselves.1  At  the  first  general  court  held  on  Martha's 
Vineyard,  June  18,  1672,  it  was  ordered  that  an  Indian 
should  have  liberty  in  any  case  to  appeal  from  such  courts 
as  they  held  among  themselves  to  the  quarter  court,  and 
from  the  quarter  court  to  the  general  court.2 

A  New  Jersey  act  of  1713  provided  for  the  trial  of  any 
negro,  Indian  or  mulatto  slave  accused  of  committing  mur- 
der, rape,  etc.,  by  a  justice  and  five  freeholders.  But  if  the 
owner  of  such  slave  should  desire  a  jury,  the  privilege 
might  be  allowed  him.  He  also  had  the  right  to  challenge 
jurors  as  in  other  cases  of  like  nature.3  The  act  was  re- 
pealed in  1768.* 

By  a  New  York  act  of  1712,  three  justices  and  five  free- 
holders of  the  county  constituted  judge  and  jury,  seven 
making  a  quorum,  for  the  trial  of  negro  and  Indian  slaves 
accused  of  murder,  rape,  insurrection  or  conspiracy.  The 
prosecution  provided  the  accusation  to  which  the  offended 

J  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  3,  iv,  p.  48.  A 
Spanish  Indian  slave  was  tried  and  acquitted  by  the  Court  of  Assist- 
ants of  Massachuset's  Bay,  in  1676.  Records  of  the  Court  of  Assistants 
of  Massachusetts  Bay,  i,  p.  15.  Sewall  mentions  Indians  (probably  free 
Indians)  tried,  condemned  and  executed  for  crimes  in  Massachusetts 
in  1709.  Sewall's  Dairy,  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collec- 
tions, series  5,  vi,  pp.  264,  265. 

2  Hough,  Papers  relating  to  the  Island  of  Nanturket,  etc.,  p.  50. 

8  Nevill,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey,  i,  p.  19. 

4  Allinson,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey,  p.  309.  Another  act  passed  in  1768  provided  for  the  trial  in 
specified  courts  of  slaves  convicted  of  certain  crimes.  Indian  slaves 
were  not  directly  mentioned.  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  308;  New  Jersey 
Archives,  series  i,  xvii,  p.  486;  xxvi,  p.  163. 


258  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [510 

was  obliged  to  plead  apparently  without  the  aid  of  counsel. 
The  owner  of  the  slave  was  given  the  right,  however,  to 
have  his  slave  tried  by  a  jury  of  twelve,  provided  he  paid 
the  jury  charges  of  nine  shillings.1  An  act  of  1730  changed 
the  required  number  of  justices  to  three,  one  to  be  a 
quorum,  associated  with  five  of  the  principal  freeholders  of 
the  county.  Agreement  of  seven  was  required  for  the  de- 
cision. In  this  case,  as  before,  the  owner  could  have  his 
slave  tried  by  a  jury  of  twelve  if  he  paid  the  jury  charges 
of  nine  shillings.2 

There  was  a  general  tendency  among  slave  owners  to  con- 
ceal crimes  committed  by  slaves,  or  to  secrete  slave  offend- 
ers and  thus  avoid  the  financial  loss  consequent  upon  the 
time  consumed  by  the  trial  and  the  possible  imprisonment 
of  the  slave  in  case  of  conviction,  as  well  as  the  possible  in- 
jury to  the  slave  by  corporal  punishment,  or  the  still  greater 
loss  of  the  slave's  entire  value  in  case  of  his  execution.  To 
prevent  this  interference  with  justice,  as  well  as  to  recog- 
nize and  protect  the  property  rights  of  the  slave  owners, 
special  acts  were  passed  in  some  of  the  colonies  providing 
that  the  slave  owner  be  remunerated  by  the  colonial  gov- 
ernment in  case  of  the  loss  of  his  slave  through  execution 
for  crime.  In  some  colonies  the  amount  to  be  paid  the 
owner  of  a  slave  was  specified  by  law,  and  this  amount 
varied  from  £30  for  a  man  slave,  and  £20  for  a  woman 
slave  (negro,  Indian  or  mulatto),  as  provided  for  in 
a  New  Jersey  act  of  I7I3,3  to  £50  in  a  South  Carolina  act 
of  1717.*  In  other  colonies  the  amount  to  be  paid  the  slave 

1  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i,  P   766. 

a  Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  684-685. 

8  Nevill,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  21.  The  act  was  repealed,  May  10,  1768. 
Allinson,  of>.  cit.,  p.  309. 

4  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  369.  By  th:s  act 
nothing  was  awarded  the  owner  if  the  slave  was  executed  for  murder. 


2 1 1  ]  TREA  TMENT 

owner  was  left  to  the  decision  of  the  court  The  Maryland 
act  of  1717  1  is  a  case  in  point.  It  provided  that  the  court 
should  value  the  slave  (negro,  mulatto  or  Indian)  in 
tobacco,  and  that  three- fourths  of  the  value  thus  adjudged 
should  be  allowed  in  the  public  levy  to  be  paid  to  the  owner 
of  the  slave. 

In  all  of  the  colonies  the  conduct  of  Indian  slaves  as  well 
as  that  of  other  slaves  was  necessarily  subject  to  police 
regulations,  and  punishments  were  decreed  for  their  viola- 
tion. These  regulations  did  not  differ  greatly  in  the  various 
colonies,  for  the  problems  arising  from  the  use  of  slaves 
varied  but  little  in  their  nature.  Among  the  prohibitions 
laid  on  Indian  slaves  specifically  were  the  following:  to  be 
away  from  home  without  the  owner's  permission  ;2  the  pos- 
session of  fire  arms ; 3  and  engaging  in  certain  kinds  of 

1  Bacon,  Laws  of  Maryland.  Other  Maryland  acts  of  1737,  1740, 
1744,  1747,  1751,  1754,  1757,  and  1762,  required  that  the  full  adjudged 
value  be  paid  the  owner  of  any  slave  executed  by  law.  Bacon,  op.  cit. 

1  Massachusetts,  1703,  Acts  and  Resoles,  i,  p  535 ;  Rhode  Island. 
1704,  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections,  vii,  p.  230;  1750, 
Records  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  v,  p.  320;  and 

1770,  Rhode  Is'and  Laws,  edi  ion  of  1772,  pp.  24,  25;   Block  Island, 
1709,  Livermore,  A  History  of  Block  Island  from  its  Discovery,  etc., 
p.  bi ;   New   Hampshire,    1714,  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,   edition  of 

1771,  P-  52.     Connecticut,  in  1750,  forbade  Indian  slaves  being  abroad 
after  nine  o'clock  at  night  without  the  owner's  permission.    Acts  and 
Laws  of  Connecticut,  edition  of  1750,  p.  230.     New  York  City,  in  1713, 
stated  the   latest  time   at   wh'ch    Indian   slaves   could   be   away    from 
home   without   their   masters'    permission    as    one   hour    after    sunset. 
Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  in,  p.  177; 
and  1751,  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  87.     Rhode  Island,  1667,  forbade  any  Ind  an  10 
walk  about  in  the  night  time.     Livermore,  op    cit.,  61.     New  Jersey, 
1713,    forbade   any  negro,   Indian   or   mulatto   slave  to   go   five   miles 
from  home  without  his  master's  permiss  on.     Nevill,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  21. 

3  Massachusetts,  during  King  Philip's  War,  Baylies,  op.  c  t.,  p*.  iii, 
p.  189;  Block  Island,  1675,  Livermore,  op.  cit.,  p  60;  New  Hampshire, 
1689,  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1904,  i,  p.  288  (The  act 
referred  simply  to  Indians  without  specifying  bond  or  free)  ;  the  city 


26o  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [512 

traffic.1  Boston  decreed,  1728,  that  no  Indian,  negro  or  mu- 
latto should  carry  stick  or  cane  within  the  town.2  In  1778, 
when  forming  its  first  proposed  constitution,  Massachusetts 
excepted  from  the  franchise  "  negroes,  Indians  and  mu- 
lattoes,  bound  and  free  ".3  In  an  act  of  1660  the  Connec- 
ticut general  court  declared  that  neither  negro  nor  Indian 
servants  should  be  required  to  "  train,  watch  or  ward  ".* 
In  1676,  New  York  City  excluded  all  Indian  and  negro 
slaves  from  the  privilege  of  being  carters,  and  in  the  same 
year  passed  an  act  to  prevent  the  revels  of  Indian  and  negro 
slaves  at  inns.5  An  ordinance  of  the  Albany  city  council. 
1686,  forbade  any  negro  or  Indian  slave  to  drive  a 
cart  within  the  city..6  A  New  York  act  of  1731,  also,  pro- 
vided for  regulating  the  conduct  of  negroes  and  Indians 
in  the  night  time.7 

Few  of  the  acts  of  colonial  legislatures  decreeing  punish- 
ment for  various  offenses  mention  Indian  slaves ;  yet  in  the 
following  colonies  the  death  penalty  was  to  be  inflicted  upon 

of  Albany,  1686,  Munsell,  Annals  of  Albany,  viii,  296;  New  York  City, 
1683,  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
i,  134;  Pennsylvania,  1721,  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania, 
iii,  p.  254. 

1  Massachusetts,  1693,  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  156;  New  York,  1715, 
New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i»  PP-  157.  5*9  J  New  Jersey, 
1682  and  1713,  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  254; 
Nevill,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  18. 

2  IVinaor,  The  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  ii,  p.  485. 

3  Moore,  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  p.  191. 

4  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  i,  p.  349;   Stiles,   The  History  and 
Genealogies  of  Ancient  Winsor,  i,  p.  434. 

5  Watson,  Annals  and  Occurrences  of  New   York  City  and  State, 
p.   158. 

8  Weise,  The  History  of  the  City  of  Albany,  p.  209. 

7  Dunlap,   History   of   the  New  Netherlands,   etc.,   ii,   appendix,   p. 
clxiii. 


5!3]  TREATMENT  26l 

Indian  slaves  convicted  of  certain  crimes : *  by  North  Caro- 
lina, in  1741,  for  the  second  offense  of  killing  horses,  cattle 
or  hogs,  and  for  stealing,  mismarking  or  misbranding  such 
animals;2  by  New  Jersey,  in  1713,  for  murder,  or  con- 
spiracy, or  attempt  to  murder,3  and  in  1768,  for  rape,  for 
wilfully  burning  any  dwelling-house,  barn,  stable,  outhouse, 
stacks  of  corn  or  hay,  for  wilfully  mutilating,  maiming  or 
dismembering  any  person,  for  manslaughter,  for  stealing 
any  sum  of  money  above  the  value  of  £5,  and  for  com- 
mitting any  felony  or  burglary.4 

Branding  as  a  punishments  for  Indian  slaves  was  de- 
creed by  the  Massachusetts  general  court.  Runaway  Pequot 
slaves  were  so  punished.5  Judging  from  the  descriptions 
of  runaway  Indian  slaves  contained  in  the  colonial  news- 
papers, some  form  of  branding  or  marking  such  culprits 
was  used  until  a  late  period.  These  brands  or  marks  some- 
times took  the  form  of  letters  or  symbols  pricked  into  the 
skin  by  gunpowder  or  India  ink.  They  were  placed  usually 
on  the  forehead  or  the  cheeks.8 

1  The  slave  code  of  South  Carolina  was  more  elaborate  than  that  of 
any  other  colony.  But  the  various  laws  rela  ing  to  trial  and  punish- 
ment of  slaves  make  no  mention  of  Indian  slaves,  though  as  has  been 
seen,  Indian  slaves  were  more  numerous  in  that  colony  than  elsewhere. 

1  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, 1715-1803,  i,  p.  50. 

3  Nevill,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  19. 

4  Allinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  308.     By  the  terms  of  the  act,  the  court  coulrl, 
if  it  thought  best,  inflict  punishment  other  than  death   for  some  of 
these  crimes. 

5  VVinthrop,  Journal,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  His- 
tory, i,  p.  226. 

*New  England  Courant,  June  17,  1723;  Pennsylvania  Gazette,  Octo- 
ber 12,  1738;  American  Weekly  Mercury,  August  28,  1729,  and  August 
6,  1730;  New  Eng'and  Weekly  Journal,  December  2,  1728.  These 
marks  may,  in  some  instances,  have  been  tattooed  for  decorative 
purposes.  The  Sou  h  Carolina  acts  of  1712  decreed  branding  as  pun- 
ishment for  specified  crimes  committed  by  "  slaves."  The  Statutes  at 
Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  pp.  359-360,  374,  376,  377. 


262  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [514 

Whipping,  the  most  common  punishment  provided  by 
law  for  Indian  as  well  as  other  slaves,  was  decreed  by  dif- 
ferent colonies  as  follows:  by  North  Carolina,  in  1741,  to 
consist  of  thirty-nine  lashes  well  laid  on,  for  giving  false 
testimony  in  court,  killing  any  domestic  animal  without 
the  owner's  consent,  and  for  stealing,  mismarking  or  mis- 
branding  such  animals;1  by  Pennsylvania,  in  1721,  for 
making,  selling  or  using  any  fireworks  or  firearms  in  Phila- 
delphia,2 and  in  1751,  for  taking  part  in  horse  races  or 
shooting  matches  without  a  license,  fifteen  lashes  for  the 
first  offense  and  twenty-one  for  the  second ; 3  by  New  Jer- 
sey, in  1713,  for  stealing  to  the  value  of  six  pence;4  by 
New  York  City,  in  1682,  for  absence  from  their  owners' 
homes  or  plantations  without  ticket  of  leave  in  owners' 
handwriting,5  in  1683,  ten  lashes  for  meeting  together  at 
any  place  on  Sunday  or  any  other  day  in  groups  of  more 
than  four,  and  possessing  arms,  unless  the  owner  paid  six 
shillings  in  lieu  of  the  penalty,6  in  1713  7  and  1731,*  thirty- 
nine  lashes  for  being  found  in  the  city  streets,  if  above  the 
age  of  fourteen  years,  later  than  one  hour  after  sunset, 
in  1 72 1,9  and  I73I,10  for  gambling,  in  1731,  for  attending  a 
funeral  in  groups  of  more  than  twelve,11  for  disorderly  rid- 

1  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, 1715-1803,  i,  p.  50. 

*  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania,  iii,  p.  254. 
8  Ibid ,  v,  p.  109. 

4  Nevill,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  22. 

5  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  i,  p.  92. 

6  Ibid.,  i,  p.  134. 
1  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  30. 

8  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  50.    The  whipping  was  to  be  given,  if  desired,  by  the 
master  or  owner  of  the  slave. 

9  Ibid  ,  iii,  p.  177. 

10  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  87. 

11  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  88. 


515]  TREATMENT  263 

ing  through  the  streets,1  and  for  selling  "  the  Fish  Com-  ( 
monly  Called  and  known  by  the  name  of  Bass  "  in  the 
months  of  December,  January  and  February,2  and  in 
*759>  f°r  committing  any  nuisance  in  the  streets;3  by 
Connecticut,  in  1750,  forty  lashes  for  publishing  or  speak- 
ing such  words  of  and  concerning  any  other  person,  which, 
if  spoken  or  published  by  a  white  person,  would  be  consid- 
ered by  law  objectionable,4  and  for  being  abroad  after  nine 
o'clock  at  night; 5  and  by  Massachusetts,  in  1693,  f°r  deal- 
ing  in  stolen  goods.6  The  town  of  Medford,  Massachu- 
setts, ordered,  in  1734,  that  all  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto 
slaves  found  abroad  without  leave  and  not  on  their  masters' 
business  were  to  be  punished  by  whipping.7  Block  Island, 
finally,  in  1709,  provided  ten  lashes  as  punishment  for  any 
negro  or  Indian  slave  abroad  after  nine  o'clock  at  night.8 
Punishment  by  mutilation  was  sometimes  used,  especially 
in  the  southern  colonies.0  North  Carolina,  in  1741,  pro- 

1  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  Neiv  York,  iv,  p.  89. 

2  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  157. 

8  Ibid.,  vi,  p.  177.  The  city  ordinances  were  usually  continued  one 
year  and  were  then  renewed.  In  this  way  the  ord  nances  mentioned 
were  in  many  cases  continued  into  the  Revolutionary  period  The  rec- 
ords of  the  early  eighteenth  century  show  the  frequent  punishment  of 
"  slaves,  negroes  and  Indians "  for  being  out  too  late  at  night,  col- 
lecting in  too  large  groups,  noisy  revel.ng  and  gambl'ng.  On  such 
occasion  ihe  owner  of  the  slaves  was  fined.  Watson,  Annals  and 
Occurrences  of  New  York  City  and  State,  etc.,  p  162. 

4  Acts  and  Lazvs  of  Connecticut,  edition  of  1750,  p.  240. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  230. 

6  Acts  and  Reso'res,  i,  p.  156. 

7  The  Medford   Historical  Register,   iii,    1500,   No.   3,   p.    121.     The 
master  also  was  to  be  fined  for  h's  negligence. 

8  Livermore,  A  History  of  Block  Island  from  its  Discovery,  etc.,  p.  61. 

9  The  South  Carolina  act  of  1690  provided  various  sor  s  of  mut  la- 
tion    for   any   slave   convicted    of   specified    crimes.     The   Statutes   at 
Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  pp.  359-360. 


264  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES 

vided  that  any  slave,  negro  or  Indian,  giving  false  testi- 
mony in  any  court  was  to  have  an  ear  nailed  to  the  pillory 
and  to  stand  there  for  an  hour,  after  which  the  ear  was  to 
be  cut  off.  The  other  ear  was  then  to  be  nailed  in  like 
manner  and  cut  off  at  the  expiration  of  an  hour.  By  the 
same  act  the  cutting  off  of  both  ears  was  made  a  partial 
punishment  for  killing  horses,  cattle  or  hogs  without  the 
consent  of  the  owner,  and  for  stealing,  misbranding  or  mis- 
marking  such  animals.1 

Certain  of  the  colonies  attempted  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
spirituous  liquors  to  Indian  and  other  slaves.  At  the  time 
of  King  Philip's  War,  Massachusetts  forbade  the  sale  of 
liquor  without  license  to  any  Indian  or  negro.2  New  Hamp- 
shire, 1686,  passed  a  similar  act.3  In  the  same  year  the 
common  council  of  Albany  prohibited  the  selling  of  liquor 
to  Indian  slaves  without  the  owners'  permission.4 

Considering  still  another  phase  of  treatment,  namely, 
that  which  had  to  do  with  religious  instruction,  it  may  be 
said  that,  among  the  early  regulations  of  the  British  gov- 
ernment for  the  colonies,  it  was  required  that  measures  be 
taken  whereby  "  slaves  may  be  best  invited  to  the  Christian 
faith  and  be  made  capable  of  being  baptized  therein".5  In 
the  instructions  to  the  colonial  governors  the  home  govern- 
ment not  infrequently  gave  directions  for  the  conversion  of 
both  negroes  and  Indians,  but  the  Indians  referred  to  were 
free,  not  slave.  The  enslaved  natives  were  in  too  great  a 
minority  to  attract  attention ;  but  any  effort  to  instruct  and 

1  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, 1715-1803,  i,  p.  50. 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  series  2,  xiii,  p.  252. 

*  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1904,  i,  p.  117. 

4  Weise,  The  History  of  the  City  of  A  bany,  p.  209. 

6  New  York  Colonial  Manuscripts,  Instructions,  etc.,  1660,  quoted 
in  Baird,  History  of  Rye,  p.  185. 


TREATMENT  26$ 

convert  the  negroes  must,  of  course,  include  the  former 
by  implication.1 

The  good  intentions  of  the  home  government  for  the 
conversion  of  slaves  were  commonly  frustrated  by  the 
popular  belief  that  baptism  conferred  freedom  upon  slaves. 
The  general  attitude  of  slave  owners  in  all  the  colonies  was 
to  oppose  or  forbid  the  religious  instruction  and  conversion 
of  negro  and  Indian  slaves.  They  argued  that  the  instruc- 
tion and  conversion  of  slaves  tended  to  make  them  disre- 
spectful and  unreliable  and  hence  decreased  their  value. 
Consequently  the  religious  training  of  slaves  in  the  earlier 
colonial  period  depended  upon  the  personal  teaching  of  the 
owner's  family.2  This  conditions  of  affairs  appealed 
strongly  to  the  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  3  on  their  coming  to 
America  primarily  to  work  among  the  Indian  tribes.  In 
the  reports  sent  to  their  Society  early  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury they  lamented  the  unenlightened  condition  of  the 
slaves,  and  urged  that  they  be  allowed  to  work  among 
them  where  they  believed  their  efforts  would  accomplish 
more  than  among  the  Indian  tribes.  The  Society  granted 

1  The  instructions  to  Governor  Dongan,  1686;  Andros,  1688;  Slough- 
ter,  1689;  Fletcher,  1691-1699;  Bellomont,  1709,  of  New  York;  Cornbury 
of  New  Jersey,  1702,  are  cases  in  po!nt. 

2  Morgan  Godwyn,  writing  to  Governor  Berkeley  of  general  relig:ous 
conditions  in  Virginia,  says:   "All  th'ngs  concerning  the  church   and 
religion  were  left  to  the  mercy  of  the  people.     And,  last  of  all,  to 
propagate  Christianity  among  the  heathen,  whether  na  ives  or  slaves 
brought   from  other  ports,   although    (as  must  piously  be   supposed) 
it  were  the  only  end  of  God's  discover'ng  these  countries  to  us,  yet 
is    that    lookt    upon    by    our    new    race    of    Christians,    so    idle    and 
ridiculous,  so  utterly  needless  and  unnecessary,  that  no  man  can  for- 
feit his  judgment  more  than  by  any  proposed  looking  or  tending  ihat 
way"     Tiffany,   History   of   the   Protestant  Episcopal   Church    in    the 
United  States,  p.  33. 

3  Incorporated  June  16,  1701. 


266  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [518 

their  requests  and  gave  them  special  instructions  to  look 
after  the  spiritual  interests  of  all  slaves.1  Their  subsequent 
reports,  though  they  dealt  primarily  with  negro  slaves, 
sometimes  made  mention  of  Indian  slaves,  and  show  that 
there  was  no  distinction  in  religious  matteis  between  the 
slaves  of  the  two  races. 

A  letter  from  Samuel  Thomas  to  the  Society,  December 
21,  1705,  told  of  the  employment  of  negro  and  Indian  slaves 
on  the  Lord's  Day; 2  but  in  a  memorial  of  the  same  year  he 
rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of  bringing  many  Indian  and  negro 
slaves  to  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  Christianity.3  In  a 
letter  of  the  following  year  he  urged  that  the  Society  give 
the  missionaries  strict  charge  to  labor  with  great  diligence 
in  the  conversion  of  the  Indian  and  negro  slaves  in  the  re- 
spective parishes.4  In  1710,  he  reported  that  there  was  sev- 
eral unconverted  Apalachee  slaves  in  his  parish  whom  he 
was  especially  anxious  to  baptize.5  Le  Jau,  another  mission- 
ary in  South  Carolina,  reported,  in  1708,  that  the  masters 
opposed  the  baptism  and  marriage  of  their  slaves,  and  de- 
clared that  "  many  masters  cannot  be  persuaded  that 
negroes  and  Indians  are  otherwise  than  beasts  and  use  them 
like  such  ".6  In  the  same  year  he  reported  many  Indian 
and  negro  slaves  instructed  and  on  probation  for  baptism.7 

1  Humphreys,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Incorporated  Society  for 
the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  p.  90. 

2  South   Carolina   Historical   and    Genealog'ral   Magazine,   v,   p.   26. 
The  Society  ordered  the  secretary  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  Bishop 
of  London  and  ask  his  lordship's  advice  regarding  such  abuse. 

*  Ibid.,  v,  p.  37.  *  Ibid ,  v,  p.  47. 

5  Ibid.,  v,  p.  98.     Mr.  Thomas  was  appointed  in  1702  the  first  mis- 
sionary of  the  Society  in  South  Carolina. 

6  Hawkins,  Historical   Notices   of  the   Missions   of   the   Church   of 
England  in  the  North  American  Colonies,  pp.  50,  73. 

7  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  February  18,  1708-1709,  to  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation   of   the   Gospel   in   Foreign    Parts.     Humphreys,    op.   cit., 
PP.  83,  84. 


TREATMENT  267 

In  1710,  also,  certain  masters  had  so  far  yielded  in  their 
opposition  to  the  religious  training  of  slaves  as  to  allow 
Indian  and  negro  slaves  to  remain  a  half-hour  after  the 
services  for  instruction.1  In  1711,  one  Indian  slave  and 
thirty  negro  slaves  had  joined  the  church  in  his  parish,2  and 
he  was  catechizing  "  negroes  and  other  slaves  "  with  their 
masters'  consent,3  though  then,  and  even  at  a  later  period, 
other  masters  in  the  same  parish  (Goose  Creek)  opposed 
his  work  among  the  slaves.4  Where  such  consent  was 
granted,  the  slaves  were  often  required  to  declare  that  they 
were  not  being  baptized  out  of  any  effort  to  free  them- 
selves.5 From  still  another  South  Carolina  parish  (St. 
Thomas)  the  pastor,  Haskell,  wrote  in  1711  that  he  was 
encouraging  the  conversion  of  Indian  and  negro  slaves, 
and  that  he  was  also  trying  to  persuade  their  masters  to  his 
mind.6  He  met  with  some  success,  for  another  letter  of 
the  same  year  recorded  the  baptism  of  two  negroes  and  an 
Indian  slave.7  As  late  as  1730,  however,  he  reported  that 
the  religious  instruction  of  Indian  and  negro  slaves  was  ob- 
structed by  irreligious  and  worldly  people.8  In  1707, 
Dunn,  the  pastor  of  a  parish  thirty  miles  from  Charleston 
reported  that  he  met  great  difficulty  in  persuading  masters 
to  allow  their  Indian  and  negro  slaves  to  receive  religious 
instruction  or  to  be  baptized,  since  they  believed  that  bap- 
tism would  free  slaves.9 

1  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  June  13,  1710,  to  ihe  S.  P.  G   F.  P. 

*  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  February  20-21,  1711,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

*  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  September  5  and  18,  1711,  to  the  S.  P.  G   F.  P. 

4  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  December  n,  1712,  10  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

5  Letter  of  Le  Jau,  October  20,  1709,  to  the  S.  P.  G   F.  P. 

6  Letter  of  Haskell,  March  12,  1711,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

7  Letter  of  Haskell,  September  4,  1711,  10  the  S.  P.  G   F.  P. 

8  Records   of   the   Society   for   the   Propagation    of   the    Gospel   in 
Foreign  Parts,  vol.  xxiii,  bk.  vii 

9  Letter  of  Dunn,  April  21,  1707,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 


268  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [520 

The  same  attitude  of  masters  concerning  the  religious  in- 
struction of  their  slaves  was  reported  from  other  colonies 
by  the  missionaries  of  the  Society  in  question.  But  since 
the  number  of  Indian  slaves  in  no  other  colony  was  as  large 
as  in  South  Carolina,  the  mention  of  them  by  the  mission- 
aries is  far  less  frequent,  when  made  at  all.  Sharpe  of  New 
York,  in  a  letter  of  1712,  mentioned  two  Spanish  Indian 
slaves  who  were  Christians.1  Neau  of  New  York  reported 
much  opposition  of  masters  to  his  work  among  the  slaves.2 
But  Governor  Cornbury  promised  to  help  him,3  and  evi- 
dently his  labors  were  successful,  for  a  report  in  1726 
alluded  to  fourteen  hundred  negro  and  Indian  slaves,  many 
of  whom  had  been  instructed  by  Neau.4 

Since  in  general  the  religious  instruction  of  servants  and 
slaves  was  recognized  as  a  duty  by  both  the  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical authorities  in  England,  the  response  of  the  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  to  these 
letters  and  reports  was  encouraging,  and  the  missionaries 
were  directed  to  do  all  in  their  power  for  the  education  and 
conversion  of  all  slaves.5  On  one  occasion  the  Society 
went  so  far  as  to  draft  a  bill  to  be  introduced  into  Parlia- 
ment providing  for  the  more  effectual  conversion  of  ne- 
groes and  servants  in  the  plantation,6  and  also  petitioned 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  that  his  majesty  be  requested 
to  encourage  the  passage  of  laws  in  the  colonies  to  the 
effect  that  baptism  did  not  confer  freedom  upon  slaves.7 

1  Letter  of  Sharpe,  June  23,  1712,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

2  Le'ter  of  Neau,  July  4,  1704,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F   P. 

8  Letter  of  Neau,  August  29,  1704,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

4  Letter  of  Chuardens,  July  15,  1726,  to  the  S.  P.  G.  F.  P. 

5  Kennet,  An  Account  of  the  Society  for  Propagating   the   Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts,  etc.,  p.  61. 

•  Ibid.,  p   61. 

7  Journal  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  For- 
eign Parts,  vol.  i,  April  19,  1705-1706. 


52IJ  TREATMENT  269 

The  colonial  clergy  similarly  tried  to  obtain  legislation 
at  home  which  might  serve  to  dispel  the  popular  illusion 
that  baptism  conferred  freedom  upon  slaves.  A  proposi- 
tion contained  in  Mr.  Forbes'  account  of  the  state  of  the 
church  in  Virginia,  July  21,  1724,  is  a  case  in  point.  It 
stated  that  the  Christian  duty  of  instructing  and  educating 
heathen  slaves  in  the  Christian  faith  was  much  neglected  by 
slave  owners  in  America,  though  recommended  by  his 
majesty's  instructions.  It  was  accordingly  proposed  that 
every  Indian,  negro  or  mulatto  child  that  should  be  bap- 
tized and  publicly  catechized  by  the  minister  in  church,  and 
who  could,  before  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  or  her  age, 
give  a  distinct  account  of  the  creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and 
the  ten  commandments,  should,  if  the  owner  received  a 
certificate  from  the  minister  to  that  effect,  be  exempted 
from  paying  all  levies  till  the  age  of  eighteen  years.1 

Laws  to  this  effect  were  passed  in  some  of  the  colonies. 
The  Carolina  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  1669  na<^  Pr°- 
vided  that  it  should  be  lawful  for  slaves  to  become  members 
of  any  church  or  religious  profession  as  if  they  were  free- 
men, but  that  every  owner  should  have  absolute  power  and 
authority  over  his  slaves  regardless  of  their  opinion  or 
religion.2  But  by  the  so-called  "Church  Act"  of  1706 
South  Carolina  showed  itself  averse  to  the  policy  advo- 
cated in  the  Constitutions  of  1669,  and  decreed  that  the 
register  of  a  parish  should  except  negro  and  Indian  slaves 
from  the  entries  of  births,  christenings,  marriages  and 
burials.8  The  law  suited  the  times  and  was  accordingly  fol- 
lowed.4 But  in  1712,  in  order  to  correct  the  popular  mis- 

1  Perry,    Historical   Collections   relating    to    the   American    Colonial 
Church,  i,  p.  344;   Meade,  Old  Churches,  Ministers  and  Families  of 
Virginia,  i,  p.  265. 

2  Poore,    The   Federal   and   State   Constitutions,   Colonial   Charters. 
etc.,  ii,  pp.  1407,  1408. 

s  Trott,  Laws  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America,  etc.,  p.  17. 
4  Ramage,  Local  Government  and  Free  Schools  in  South  Carolina, 
p.  12,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  i. 


270  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [522 

conception  that  a  Christianized  slave  was  by  law  free,  an 
act  was  passed  to  the  effect  that  baptism  of  slaves  did  not 
confer  freedom  upon  them.1 

As  early  as  1655,  the  Virginia  assembly  had  voted 
that  Indian  servants  should  be  educated  and  brought 
up  in  the  Christian  faith.2  Yet  the  idea  that  bap- 
tism conferred  freedom  upon  a  slave  even  then  ex- 
isted in  the  colony,  since  one  of  the  reasons  given 
for  the  disallowance  of  the  sale  of  an  Indian  boy  by  "The 
Kinge  of  Waineoke "  to  Elizabeth  Short  in  1659  was 
that  the  boy  was  desirous  of  baptism.3  The  above  action 
of  the  legislature  probably  contributed  to  the  enactment 
of  the  law  of  1667  which  decreed  that  the  baptism  of  a 
slave  did  not  confer  freedom  upon  him  or  in  any  way 
change  his  condition.  The  act  naively  declared  the  reason 
for  this  legislative  action  to  be  that  masters  freed  from 
this  doubt  might  the  more  carefully  encourage  the  propa- 
gation of  Christianity  by  permitting  the  conversion  of 
slaves.4  The  act  of  1670,  when  slaves  were  for  the  first 
time  legally  designated  as  such  in  Virginia,  decreed  that 
freedom  resulting  from  Christianity  was  limited  to  ser- 
vants imported  by  shipping.  Consequently  Indian  servants 
or  slaves,  since  they  generally  came  into  the  colony  by 
land,  were  not  eligible  to  become  freemen  by  the  provision.5 
The  act  of  1670  was  repealed  in  1682  and  a  new  act  re- 
moved the  possibility  of  conversion  to  Christianity  con- 
ferring freedom  upon  any  slaves,  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian, 
by  decreeing  that  whether  converted  to  Christianity  before 
or  after  being  brought  to  the  colony,  they  should  remain 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  pp.  364-365. 
1  Herring,  of>.  cit.,  i,  p.  410. 

3  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  vi,  p.  215 ;  Herring,  op.  cit., 
",  P.  155- 

4  Hening,  op.  cit ,  ii,  p.  260.  5  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  283. 


523]  TREATMENT  271 

slaves.1  Finally,  in  1712,  Virginia  passed  a  law  requiring 
that  the  parents  of  free-born  children  and  the  owners  of 
slave-born  children,  within  twenty  days  after  the  birth  of 
a  child,  should  give  notice  in  writing  of  the  birth,  with 
name  and  sex,  the  names  of  the  parents  of  a  free-born 
child,  and  the  name  of  the  owner  of  a  slave-born  child. 
The  death  of  a  slave  was  to  be  reported  to  the  minister  of 
the  parish  in  the  same  way,  and  the  minister  was  required 
to  keep  a  record  of  all  births  and  deaths  in  his  parish.21 
Virginia  parish  registers  after  this  date  contain  records  of 
the  death  of  Indian  slaves.3  Maryland,  also,  by  the  acts  of 
1692,*  i694,5  I7O46  and  1715'  sought  to  encourage  the 
baptism  of  "  negroes  and  other  slaves  "  by  asserting  that 
baptism  did  not  confer  freedom  upon  slaves  or  their  off- 
spring. In  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  Queen  Anne 
to  Governor  Cornbury,  1702,  New  Jersey  passed  an  act  in 
May,  1704,  declaring  that  baptism  of  any  negro,  Indian  or 
mulatto  slave  should  not  be  considered  reason  or  cause  for 
his  freedom.8 

1  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  491.  The  testimony  of  the  Reverend  Hugh  Jones,  chap- 
lain of  the  Virginia  assembly,  shows  that  the  colon  sts,  even  after 
such  legislative  action,  did  not  approve  of  the  bap  izing  of  Indians  and 
negroes  as  they  thought  it  made  them  proud  and  not  so  good  servants. 
Jones,  however,  declared  that  these  objections  could  be  eas  ly  re- 
futed "  if  '.he  persons  be  sensible,  good  and  understand  English,  and 
have  been  taught  (or  are  willing  to  learn)  the  principles  of  Christian- 
ity and  if  they  be  kept  to  the  observance  of  it  afterward,  for  Chris- 
tianizing encourages  and  orders  them  to  become  more  humble  and  be  - 
ter  servants  and  not  worse  than  when  they  were  heathen."  Jones, 
The  Present  State  of  Virg'nia,  in  Sabin's  Reprints,  No.  5,  p.  70. 

*  Trott,  Laws  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America,  etc.,  p..  142. 

3  The   parish    register   of   St.    Peters,    New   Kem    County,   Virginia, 
1680-1787,  pp.  53  and  64,  mentions  the  deaths  of  iwo  Indian  slaves  in 
1722  and  1723,  but  records  no  births  or  marriages. 

4  Archives  of  Maryland,  xiii,  p.  505. 

5  Ibid.,  xix,  p.  32.  6  Bacon,  Laws  of  Maryland. 
7  Ibid.  8  Trott,  op.  cit.,  p.  257. 


272  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [524 

The  amended  "  Duke's  Laws  "  published  about  1674,  de- 
creed that  turning  Christian  should  not  set  at  liberty  any 
negro  or  Indian  servant  in  New  York  who  had  been  bought 
by  any  person.1  Evidently  the  colonists  put  but  little  faith 
in  this  provision,  for  Governor  Dongan  reported  in  1687 
that  they  "take  no  care  of  the  conversion  of  their  slaves." 
The  old  idea  that  conversion  conferred  freedom  upon  slaves 
prevailed,  and  was  doubtless  strengthened  by  an  order  of 
the  council,  October  n,  1687,  that  Christian  Indians  and 
children  of  Christian  parents  brought  from  Campeachy  and 
Vera  Cruz  as  slaves  should  be  set  free,3  and  by  a  similar 
order  in  the  following  year  that  Spanish  Indian  slaves  pro- 
fessing Christianity  were  to  be  released  and  sent  home.4 
This  last  order  was  accompanied  by  a  decree  of  the  council, 
July  30,  1688,  that  the  Spanish  Indian  slaves  of  certain  per- 
sons be  brought  before  it  with  a  view  of  liberating  them  if 
they  were  able  to  say  the  Lord's  Prayer.5  A  report  of  Gov- 
ernor Bellomont,  April  27,  1699,  also,  states  that  a  "  Bill 
for  facilitating  the  conversion  of  negroes  and  Indians  .  .  . 
would  not  go  down  with  the  assembly ;  they  having  a  notion 
that  the  negroes  being  converted  to  Christianity  would 
emancipate  them  from  their  slavery,  and  loose  them  from 
their  service."  6  But  an  act  of  October  24,  1706,  "  to  en- 
courage the  Baptizing  of  Negro,  Indian  and  Mulatto  slaves" 
stated  that  the  baptism  of  slaves  did  not  confer  freedom 
upon  them.7  This  partially  calmed  the  fears  of  the  slave 

1  Morgan,  Slavery  in  New  York,  in  Historic  New  York,  i,  p.  8. 

3  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii,  p.  415. 

8  Brodhead,   op.  cit.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  486.     This  act  merely  con- 
firmed previous  legislation  in  1680. 

4  Ibid.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  509.     This  confirmed  the  legislation  of  the 
previous  year. 

5  Ibid.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  510. 

6  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iv,  p.  510. 

7  Morgan,  op.  cit.,  in  Historic  New  York,  ii,  p.  20;  Laws  of  New 
York,  edition  of  1752,  p.  69. 


525]  TREATMENT  273 

owners,  and  the  baptism  of  slaves  became  more  frequent;  * 
but  it  did  not  lead  the  owners  in  all  cases  to  favor  the  work 
of  the  missionaries  among  the  slaves.  In  1724,  Mr.  Jenney 
reported  to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts :  "  There  are  a  few  negroes  and  Indian 
slaves  ...  in  my  parish:  the  catechist,  a  school-master 
from  the  honorable  society,  has  often  proposed  to  teach 
them  the  catechism,  but  we  cannot  prevail  upon  their  masters 
to  spare  them  from  their  labor  for  that  good  work."  * 
Again,  in  1728,  Mr.  Wetmore  reported  the  opposition  of 
Quaker,  Presbyterian  and  Episcopalian  masters  to  the  in- 
struction and  baptism  of  their  slaves,3  but  in  1734  he  al- 
luded to  the  baptism  of  one  adult  Indian  slave.4 

In  New  England  the  earliest  action  taken  by  the  colonial 
government  with  regard  to  the  religious  instruction  of 
slaves  occurred  in  1677  in  connection  with  the  disposal  as 
slaves  of  the  captives  taken  in  King  Philip's  War,  when  it 
was  decreed  that  all  the  Indian  slaves  distributed  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  should  "  be  taught  and  in- 
structed in  the  Christian  religion."  5  How  far  such  relig- 
ious training  was  carried  out  would  be  difficult  to  ascertain. 
Occasional  glimpses  of  the  situation  can  be  obtained.  Ex- 
perience Mayhew  lamented  that  all  the  English  did  not  in- 
struct their  servants  in  the  "  principles  of  the  true  re- 

1  Morgan,  op.  tit.,  in  Historic  New  York,  ii,  p.  20. 

*  Bolton,  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  County 
of  Westchester,  p.  228. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  250. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  264.     The  slaves  in  New  York,  as  in  other  colonies,  did 
not  favor  giving  up  their  Sundays  to  religious  instruction  and  observ- 
ances, for  they  preferred  to  hunt  and  fish  on  this,  the  only  day  which 
they  had  to  themselves.    Ibid.,  pp.  62-63. 

5  Shurtleff,  Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  v,  p.  136. 


274  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [526 

ligion  " ; *  though  he  cited  instances  when  Indian  servants, 
some  of  whom  may  have  been  slaves,  were  so  instructed.2 
Just  how  much  missionary  work  was  done  in  the  homes  of 
Massachusetts  or  elsewhere  for  the  converison  of  Indian 
servants  and  slaves  is  not  known.  Indian  slaves  were 
owned  by  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  it  may  be  supposed 
that  some  attention  was  given  to  their  instruction.  Evi- 
dently the  religious  spirit  of  the  Massachusetts  colonists 
was  sufficiently  strong  to  include  Indian  slaves  and  ser- 
vants, for  in  some  churches  negroes  and  Indians  had  a  spe- 
cial location  assigned  them  in  the  church  3  and  occasional 
reference  is  found  to  Indian  slaves  being  church  mem- 
bers. According  to  the  baptismal  records  of  November  19, 
1727,  for  example,  the  Indian  slave  of  Lieutenant  Stephen 
Longfellow,  great-great-grandfather  of  the  poet,  was  his 
fellow  member  in  the  Byfield  church.4  In  this  same  year 
the  Reverend  Timothy  Cutler  reported  from  Boston: 
"Negro  and  Indian  slaves  belonging  to  my  parish  are  about 
thirty-two,  their  education  is  according  to  the  houses  they 
belong  to.  I  have  baptized  but  two.  But  I  know  of  the 
masters  of  some  others  who  are  disposed  to  this  important 
good  of  their  slaves  and  are  preparing  them  for  it;  how- 
ever, there  is  too  great  a  remissness  upon  this  article  ".5  In 
Rhode  Island,  also,  for  a  long  period  the  slaves  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  church  because  their  owners  considered 
church  membership  to  be  inconsistent  with  their  position. 
Finally  in  1721  James  MacSparran,  pastor  of  Narragansett, 

1  Mayhew,  Indian  Converts,  p.  194. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  202,  222,  257. 

8  Plymouth    Colony    Records,    ii,    pp.    103-104;    Medford    Historical 
Register,  iii,  No.  3,  p.  121. 

4  Ewell,  The  Story  of  Byfield,  p.  88. 

5  Perry,   Historical   Collections  relating   to   the  American  Episcopal 
Church,  ii,  p.  231. 


TREATMENT 

protested  against  denying  slaves  the  benefit  of  religious  in- 
struction and  activities,  and  carried  his  point.1  After  that 
date  Indian  and  other  slaves  could  belong  to  the  churches, 
though  baptism  and  membership  were  still  held  in  disfavor 
by  the  slave  owners.2  Connecticut,  too,  in  1727,  favored 
the  work  of  the  church  by  enacting  that  masters  and  mis- 
tresses of  Indian  children  were  to  use  their  utmost  en- 
deavors to  instruct  them  in  the  Christian  faith.3 

The  popular  idea  that  baptism  conferred  freedom  upon 
slaves  aroused  eventually  so  much  discussion  among  both 
the  colonists  and  the  representatives  of  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  and  so  many 
inquiries  were  addressed  to  the  home  government  concern- 
ing the  matter,  that  in  1729  the  opinions  of  Talbot  and 
Yorke,  the  attorney  and  solicitor  generals  of  England,  were 
expressed  on  the  subject  Their  decision  was  in  accord 
with  the  acts  of  the  various  colonial  legislatures  to  the 
effect  that  baptism  did  not  confer  freedom  upon  slaves. 
The  declaration  of  Gibson,  Bishop  of  London,  about  the 
same  time,  also,  that  "  Christianity  and  the  embracing  of 
the  Gospels  does  not  make  the  least  alteration  in  civil  prop- 
erty ",  practically  ended  the  discussion.4 

Turning  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  question  of  manu- 
mission, it  may  be  said  that  an  Indian  slave,  like  a  negro 
of  like  condition,  might  obtain  freedom  during  the  latter's 
lifetime,  or  by  testamentary  disposition  at  the  owner's 
death.  His  freedom  might  be  purchased  either  by  himself 

1  Journal  of  the  American  Irish  Historical  Society,  iii,  p    57. 
1  Johnston,  Slavery  in  Rhode  Island,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  So- 
ciety Publications,  1894,  ">  P-  I2° 

3  Kurd,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  272;  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  p.  16,  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  xvi. 

4  Cobb,  An  Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery  from  the  Earliest  Periods, 
p.  clii. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [528 

or  others.  A  colonial  court  might  declare  him  free  if  it 
were  found  that  he  was  illegally  held  or  misused.  A  col- 
onial government,  also,  might  grant  him  freedom  for  some 
special  service  rendered. 

Action  of  the  owner  was  naturally  the  most  common 
way  of  conferring  freedom.1  When  freedom  was  be- 
stowed during  the  owner's  lifetime,  a  deed  of  manumission 
was  usually  given  in  order  to  avoid  future  complications.2 
Occasionally  in  special  instances  the  colonial  government 
recognized  such  action  of  the  slave  owners  as  legal.  For 
instance,  the  South  Carolina  Board  of  Counsel,  August  3, 
1711,  in  its  directions  to  the  Indian  traders  provided  that 
any  Indians  taken  captive  in  war  and  declared  free  by  their 
respective  masters  who  had  a  right  so  to  act,  should  be 
deemed  free  men.3 

Record  exists  of  Indian  slaves  purchasing  their  freedom 
from  two  sources,  viz. :  the  colonial  governments  that 

1  Coffin,  History  of  Newbury,  p.  336,  cites  instances  in  Newbury  in 
1687  and  1702.  Orcutt,  The  History  of  the  old  Town  of  Derby, 
Connecticut,  p.  Ivii,  mentions  a  deed  of  manumission  in  Connecticut 
in  1688,  given  to  Tobie,  an  Indian  captive  of  King  Philip's  War. 
Smith,  History  of  Delazvare  County,  Pennsylvania,  p.  219,  refers  to  the 
conditional  manumission  of  an  Indian  slave,  three  years  old,  born  in 
the  family.  Cotton  Mather,  also,  promised  to  free  an  Indian  slave  at 
the  close  of  four  years  of  service.  Diary,  in  Massachusetts  Histori- 
cal Society  Collections,  series  7,  vii,  p.  203. 

1  A  Virginia  act  of  1782  provided  for  the  freeing  of  a  slave  by  an 
instrument  in  writing  submitted  by  the  owner.  A  copy  of  this  in- 
strument attested  by  the  clerk  of  the  county  court  was  to  be  given  to 
the  manumitted  slave.  Any  master  neglecting  to  give  such  a  copy  to 
the  slave  in  question  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  £10.  Hening,  op.  cit., 
xi,  p.  39.  Maryland  by  an  act  of  1752  declared  that  owners  under  or- 
dinary circumstances  had  the  right  to  free  slaves.  Two  witnesses  were 
required  for  the  act,  which  must  be  in  writing.  Bacon,  Laws  of 
Maryland.  These  acts  were  intended  primarily  to  apply  to  negro 
slaves. 

*  Indian  Book,  1710-1718,  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  Historical  Com 
mission  Department,  i,  p.  19. 


TREATMENT 


277 


held  them  before  they  were  transferred  to  individual 
owners,  and  the  individual  masters  themselves.  In 
Plymouth,  March  5,  1668,  it  was  ordered  that  a  certain  In- 
dian held  at  Boston  "  for  matter  of  fact  ",  since  there  was 
"  a  probability  of  a  tender  of  some  land  for  his  ransom 
from  being  sent  to  Barbadoes  ",  should  be  freed  from  such 
slavery  on  the  tender  of  the  land  in  question.1  A  similar 
instance  occurred  in  Connecticut.  One  of  the  earliest  land 
grants  of  that  colony  was  conveyed  to  its  owner  by  the  In- 
dian chief,  Uncas,  in  1678,  in  exchange  for  Betty,  an  In- 
dian woman  taken  captive  in  King  Philip's  War.2  Experi- 
ence Mayhew  relates  the  instance  of  an  Indian  slave  who, 
after  his  master's  death,  purchased  his  freedom  from  his 
mistress  on  easy  terms,  "  his  master  having  never  designed 
to  keep  him  a  slave  all  his  days  ".3  Another  instance,  in 
1709,  shows  an  Indian  slave  woman  sold  to  a  free  Indian 
to  become  his  wife,  in  return  for  certain  land.4 

By  South  Carolina  law,  an  Indian  slave  was  given  a 
chance  to  prove  his  right  to  freedom.  According  to  the 
act  of  1712,  any  negro,  mulatto,  mustee  or  Indian  slave, 
claiming  freedom  for  certain  reasons  specified  in  the  act, 
had  the  right  to  have  his  case  heard  and  determined  by 
governor  and  council.5  The  act  was  repeated  in  I722.8  By 

I  the  terms  of  the  acts  of  1735  7  and  I74O,8  any  slave  might 
1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  iv,  p.  173.     By  the  terms  of  the  order, 
the  value  of  the  land  was  to  be  expended  for  defraying  the  charges  of 
printing  the  book  "  New  England's  Memorial." 

2  Baker.  History  of  Montmlle,  Connecticut,  p.  77.     This  woman  was 
given  by  the  colonial  government  to  Captain  James  Avery  who  sold 
her  to  Mr.  Charles  Hill  who  in  turn  traded  her  to  Uncas. 
$  Mayhew,  Indian  Converts,  p.  120. 

4  Orcutt,  The  History  of  the  old  Town  of  Derby,  Connecticut,  p.  vii. 
6  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  352. 
6  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  371.  T  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  385. 

Ibid.,  vii,  pp.  397-398. 


278  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [530 

apply  to  the  justices  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  by  peti- 
tion or  motion.  The  court  would  then  appoint  a  guardian 
for  "  said  negro  or  Indian,  mulatto  or  mestizo  " ;  and,  after 
hearing  evidence,  would  render  decision.  The  alleged 
owner  might  defend  himself,  and  if  the  plaintiff  were  de- 
clared free,  the  jury  might  award  damages  to  the  defend- 
ant. If  the  defendant  should  win  the  case,  the  court  might 
inflict  such  corporal  punishment  on  the  plaintiff  as  it  should 
see  fit,  not  extending  to  danger  to  life  or  limb.  The  burden 
of  proof  was  to  lie  with  the  plaintiff,  and  any  such  negro, 
Indian,  etc.,  was  to  be  considered  a  slave  until  the  con- 
trary was  proved.  Other  courts  of  the  province  besides  the 
one  mentioned,  were  to  have  similar  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter. 

Certain  of  the  colonies  specified  how  slaves  might  be 
emancipated.  In  1723,  Virginia  declared  that  no  negro, 
mulatto  or  Indian  slave  was  to  be  set  free  upon  any  pre- 
tense whatever  except  for  some  meritorious  service,  to  be 
adjudged  and  allowed  by  the  governor  and  council  for  the 
time  being,  and  a  license  therefor  first  obtained.  If  any 
slave  should  be  set  free  by  his  owner  in  any  other  way,  it 
was  declared  lawful  for  the  churchwardens  of  the  parish 
wherein  such  slave  should  reside  tfor  the  space  of  one 
month  following  his  being  freed,  to  take  up  and  sell  the 
said  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  as  a  slave  at  the  next  court 
held  for  the  county.1  North  Carolina,  similarly,  in  1741, 
provided  that  no  slave  was  to  be  freed  except  for  meritor- 
ious service,  to  be  adjudged  and  allowed  by  license  of  the 
county  court.  If  any  owner  should  free  his  slave  in  any 
other  way,  the  church  wardens  of  the  parish  wherein  such 
"  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  "  should  be  found  at  the  expira- 
tion of  six  months  after  the  manumission,  were  authorized 

1  Hening,  op.  cit.,  iv,  p.  132. 


53 1  ]  TREATMENT  279 

and  required  to  sell  the  said  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  as  a 
slave  at  the  next  session  of  the  county  court.1 

The  colonial  governments  themselves  granted  freedom 
to  Indian  slaves  on  special  occasions.  By  an  act  passed  in 
1660,  Virginia  provided  that  an  Indian  sold  by  another  In- 
dian, or  an  Indian  who  spoke  the  English  language  and 
who  might  desire  baptism,  should  be  given  his  or  her  free- 
dom.2 In  1675,  also>  the  Massachusetts  general  court 
freed  the  sister  of  an  Indian  whose  friendship  it  wished  to 
assure.  The  alleged  owner  of  the  slave  being  able  to  prove 
his  title,  the  court  ordered  that  £5  be  paid  for  the  slave's 
liberty.3 

At  the  time  of  King  Philip's  War  the  general  courts  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  and  Plymouth  reserved  the  privilege,  not 
only  of  disposing  of  captives  as  slaves,  but  also  of  taking 
these  slaves  away  from  their  owners  and  giving  them  their 
liberty  if  such  action  seemed  advisable.  In  March,  1679, 
the  Massachusetts  general  court  made  reparation  in  money 
to  the  master  of  an  Indian  slave,  when  for  some  reason  the 
court  freed  the  slave.*  The  Plymouth  general  court,  June 
3,  1679,  ordered  the  release  of  a  certain  Indian  woman  and 
her  husband  upon  the  payment  by  the  woman's  brothers  of 
£6  in  New  England  silver  money.5  The  same  order  pro- 
vided in  the  case  of  a  "  younger  Indian  "  that  he  should  re- 
main with  his  master  until  twenty-four  years  old,  and  then 
be  given  his  freedom.6  Like  action  was  taken  in  1714  when 

1  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, i,  p.  66 ;  Dillon,  Oddities  in  Colonial  Legislation,  p.  233. 

3  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  155. 

8  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iv,  p.  4;  Freeman,  The  History  of  Cape  Cod, 
ii,  p.  72. 

4  Massachusetts  Manuscript  Records,  vol.  xxx. 
6  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  vi,  p.  15. 

6  Hid.,  vi,  p.  15. 


2go  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [532 

the  owner  of  an  Indian  slave  petitioned  the  Massachusetts 
general  court  for  the  payment  of  £25,  "  the  prime  cost 
which  he  paid  for  an  Indian  boy  lately  called  out  of  his 
hands  to  be  returned  to  the  Indians  at  the  time  of  the  late 
pacification,  besides  charges  in  keeping  and  clothing  of  him 
and  for  doctors  ".1  Just  prior  to  Church's  expedition  in 
King  Philip's  War,  furthermore,  as  a  military  measure  to 
prevent  conspiracy  among  the  Indians  in  the  colony  and 
their  union  with  the  warring  tribes,  Massachusetts  decreed 
that  any  Indian  servant  discovering  any  dangerous  plot  or 
conspiracy  of  Indians  should  be  emancipated,  and  his  mas- 
ter be  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury  a  reasonable  price  for 
his  services.2 

Some  of  the  colonies  considered  it  advisable  to  make 
regulations  regarding  the  Indians  after  emancipation.  A 
Virginia  act  of  1670  specified  that  former  Indian  slaves 
"  though  baptized  and  enjoined  their  own  freedom  "  could 
not  purchase  Christian  white  servants.  The  law  did  not 
debar  them,  however,  from  buying  any  of  their  own  race.3 
Both  New  York  by  the  act  of  1712,*  and  New  Jersey  by  the 
act  of  I7I3,5  decreed  that  no  freed  Indian  could  hold  any 
real  estate  property  in  the  colony  concerned.  South  Caro- 
lina and  North  Carolina,  also,  regarded  the  presence  of 
manumitted  Indians  in  the  colony  as  undesirable.  The 
possibility  that  freedmen  of  this  sort  might  stir  up  disturb- 
ance among  their  fellows  who  remained  in  slavery  was  too 
great  a  risk.  A  South  Carolina  act  of  1722  decreed  that, 
if  owners  freed  any  slave,  they  must  make  provision  for 

1  Acts  and  Resolves,  ix,  p.  376. 
1  Baylies,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pt.  iv,  p.  109. 

*  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  280. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i,  p.  764. 

*  Nevill,  Acts   of  the   General  Assembly   of   the  Province   of  New 
Jersey,  i,  p.  23. 


533]  TREATMENT  28l 

his  passage  out  of  the  province.  Such  freedman,  if  he  did 
not  leave  the  province  within  twelve  months  after  his 
manumission  (being  at  liberty  to  do  so)  would  lose  the 
benefit  of  his  emancipation,  and  continue  to  be  a  slave,  un- 
less the  manumission  were  confirmed  by  both  houses  of  the 
legislature.1  A  further  act  of  1735  required  that  the  slave 
when  manumitted  should  quit  the  province  within  the 
period  of  six  months  following  his  manumission,  and 
not  return  within  seven  years.2  The  North  Carolina  act  of 
1741  specified  that,  if  any  freedman  did  not  depart  from 
the  province  within  six  months  following  his  manumission, 
or  should  thereafter  return  to  the  province,  the  church 
wardens  of  the  parish  where  he  might  be  at  the  end  of  one 
month  after  his  return,  were  to  sell  him  at  public  auction 
at  the  next  session  of  the  county  court3 

The  freeing  of  slaves  who  after  their  manumission 
might  possess  no  means  of  support  and  in  consequence 
become  a  burden  upon  the  community,  presented  a 
problem  that  often  needed  attention.  Connecticut  under- 
stood the  value  of  freeing  worn-out  slaves  so  as  to  avoid 
supporting  them  in  their  time  of  uselessness;  hence  in  1702 
the  general  court  enacted  that  every  slave  owner  who  freed 
his  slave  should  in  the  years  following  manumission,  if  the 
former  slave  came  to  want,  meet  the  expense  which  the 
local  government  encountered  in  caring  for  the  freedman.4 
The  act  was  renewed  by  the  court  in  I7O3.5  Another  act 
of  practically  the  same  tenor  and  including  "  Spanish  In- 
dians "  was  passed  in  171 1.6  An  act  of  1777,  also,  relieved 
the  former  owner  of  a  freedman  from  any  obligation  to 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  384. 

*  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  396. 

1  Martin,  The  Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina, i,  p.  66;  Dillon,  op.  cit.,  p.  233. 

*  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  iii,  pp.  375-376. 

*  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  408.  6  Ibid.,  v,  p.  233. 


2g2  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [534 

contribute  to  his  support  if  the  act  of  manumission  had 
been  sanctioned  in  due  form  by  the  selectmen  of  the  former 
owner's  town.1 

A  New  York  law  of  1712,  on  the  other  hand,  provided 
that  any  one  manumitting  "  any  negro,  Indian  or  mulatto 
slave  "  should  give  security  of  not  less  than  £200  to  pay 
yearly  to  such  freed  slave  the  sum  of  £20  lawful  money  of 
the  colony.  If  the  slave  were  freed  by  will  and  testament, 
the  executors  of  the  deceased  person  were  required  to  give 
the  same  security  after  probate.  If  such  security  were  not 
given,  the  manumission  should  be  void.2  Since  the  law 
proved  to  be  unsatisfactory,  in  1717  it  was  amended  so  as 
to  provide  that  any  master  or  other  person  manumitting 
an  Indian  or  negro  slave  should  give  security  at  the  Gen- 
eral Sessions  of  the  Peace  for  city  and  county  where  such 
freed  Indian  or  negro  should  reside,  to  keep  such  freedman 
from  becoming  a  charge  on  the  city,  town  or  place.3 

New  Jersey,  too,  in  1713,  passed  an  act  declaring  that 
no  negro  or  mulatto  slave  could  be  manumitted  unless  the 
slave's  master  gave  surety  to  pay  such  freed  slave  £20 
yearly.4  This  is  the  only  section  of  the  act  which  did  not 
include  Indian  slaves  in  its  provisions.  Evidently  the  omis- 
sion was  unsatisfactory,  for  a  later  act,  November  16, 
1769,  repealed  the  section  and  provided  that,  if  any  owner 
should  by  will  or  otherwise  free  "  any  negro,  Indian  or 
mulatto  slave  ",  then  such  owner,  his  heirs  or  executors,  at 
the  next  session  of  the  Court  of  General  Quarter  Sessions 
of  the  Peace  in  the  county  where  such  owner  resided,  must 
give  a  bond  of  £200,  so  as  to  indemnify  the  community  if 
such  freedman  became  a  pauper.5 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  xvi,  p.  415. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i,  p.  765. 

»  Ibid,,  i,  p.  922. 

4  Nevill,  op.  cit.,  \,  p.  23.  B  Allinson.  op.  cit.,  p.  316 


CHAPTER  XII 
THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY 

THE  small  number  of  the  Indians  within  the  ter- 
ritory actually  occupied  by  the  English  had  its  influ- 
ence upon  both  the  extent  and  the  decline  of  Indian  slav- 
ery. The  Indians  were  never  as  numerous  in  the  English 
territory  as  in  that  occupied  or  claimed  by  the  Spanish  and 
French.  From  many  estimates  made  of  the  Indian  popu- 
lation in  the  section  under  English  rule,1  it  would  seem 
that  the  supply  was  sufficient  to  nourish  the  system  of 
Indian  slavery  indefinitely;  but  it  must  be  noted  that  the 
greater  portion  of  this  Indian  population  was  made  up  of 
tribes  generally  remote  from  the  English  settlements. 

The  consensus  of  opinion  to-day  is  that  the  number  of 
Indians  in  New  England  about  the  year  1600  was  not 
greater  than  twenty-four  or  twenty-five  thousand.  This 
number  was  so  much  reduced  by  the  plague  of  i6i6,2  that 

1  Brain,  The  Redemption  of  the  Red  Man,  p.  2,  believes  that  the 
entire  Indian  population  of  the  territory  now  occupied  by  the  United 
States  never  exceeded  300,000  souls.  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United 
States  of  America  from  the  Discovery  of  the  Continent,  edition  of 
1878,  ii,  p.  408,  estimates  the  number  east  of  the  Mississippi  River 
and  south  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  Great  Lakes  at  not  far  from 
180,0000  at  the  time  of  the  discovery.  To  the  various  tribes  of  the 
Algonquin  race  he  assigns  90,000 ;  the  eastern  Sioux,  3000 ;  the  Iroquois 
including  their  southern  kindred,  17,000;  the  Catawba,  3,000;  the 
Cherokee,  12,000 ;  the  Chickasaw,  Choctaw  and  Muskohgee,  50,000 ; 
the  Uchee,  1000,  and  the  Natchez,  4,000. 

1  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  54. 

535]  283 


284  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [536 

Palfrey  states  that  the  English  found  practically  a  vacant 
domain.1  In  the  Florida  country  many  small  tribes  were 
so  thoroughly  exterminated  before  the  coming  of  the  whites 
that  no  trace  of  their  existence  remained  except  a  few  local 
names.2  In  the  interior  of  the  continent  before  the  French 
or  the  English  had  obtained  a  foothold,  the  whole  country 
during  the  seventeenth  century  was  the  seat  of  intertribal 
wars  so  disastrous  in  their  results  as  to  destroy  many  large 
and  powerful  tribes.3 

With  the  coming  of  the  white  races  the  decrease  in  the 
number  of  the  Indians  went  on  rapidly.  Estimates  show 
such  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  Indians  of  the  North 
Atlantic  coast  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury.4 Bradford 5  and  Winthrop 6  bear  witness  to  the 
small  number  of  the  natives,  and  to  the  further  decrease  of 
that  number  after  the  coming  of  the  whites.  An  early 
writer  on  New  York  declares:  "  There  is  now  (1670)  but 
few  Indians  upon  the  island  and  those  few  no  ways  hurtful. 
It  is  to  be  admired  how  strangely  they  have  decreased  by 
the  hand  of  God,  since  the  English  first  settling  in  these 
parts."  Oldmixon  gives  the  number  of  Indian  men  in 
New  York  in  1708  as  one  thousand,  "whereas  there  are 
seven  or  eight  times  as  many  English."  8  According  to  the 

1  Palfrey,  op.  cit.,  Hi,  p.  137. 

f  Thomas,  The  Indians  of  North  America  in  Historic  Times,  p.  60. 

5  Parkman,  A  Half  Century  of  Conflict,  ii,  p.  286. 

4  Year  Book  of  the  Society  of  Colonial  Wars  in  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  1898,  p.  no. 

5  Bradford,  History  of  Plymouth  Plantations,  in  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society  Collections,  series  4,  iii,  p.  325. 

6  Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  pt.  iii,  p.  119,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early 
American  History. 

7  Denton,  A  Brief  Description  of  New  York,  etc.,  in  Gowan,  Biblio- 
theca  Americana,  p.  7. 

8  Oldmixon,  The  British  Empire  in  America,  etc.,  i,  p.  125. 


537]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  28$ 

same  authority,  the  number  of  Indians  in  New  Jersey  at  the 
opening  of  the  eighteenth  century  did  not  exceed  two  hun- 
dred.1 

A  decreased  birth-rate  was  not  the  least  important  cause 
of  this  decrease  in  numbers  throughout  all  the  tribes.  Fol- 
lowing the  advent  of  the  whites  in  the  new  world,  "  sterility 
became  the  rule  and  not  the  exception  ",  where  before  the 
Indians  were  very  prolific.2  The  natives,  bond  or  free, 
seemed  to  possess  a  peculiar  susceptibility  to  the  diseases  of 
the  whites,  and  a  lack  of  ability  to  withstand  their  effects. 
The  Indians  of  the  Delaware  River  country  complained 
that  during  the  sixteen  years  after  the  coming  of  the 
Swedes,  their  number  had  been  much  diminished,  presum- 
ably by  small-pox.3  In  both  North  and  South  Carolina, 
the  Indians  were  much  afflicted  by  this  same  disease  in 
early  colonial  days,  one  tribe  being  entirely  swept  away,4 
another  nearly  exhausted,6  and  still  others  much  reduced 
in  numbers.6  Owing  to  diseases  and  other  causes  the  sev- 
eral tribes  in  Carolina  at  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury were  small,  most  of  them  not  numbering  more  than 
fifty  men  each.7  Douglass  recorded  that  the  Spanish  In- 
dians captured  at  St.  Augustine  and  brought  to  New  Eng- 
land, soon  died  of  consumption.8 

1  Oldmixon,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  141. 

*  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  i,  pp.  421-422. 

'  Ferris,  A  History  of  the  Original  Settlements  on  the  Delaware 
from  its  Discovery  by  Hudson  to  the  Colonisation  under  William 
Penn,  etc.,  p.  83. 

4  Archdale,  op.  cit.,  in  Carroll,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  89. 

6  Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  89,  519. 

6  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  89. 

T  Letter  of  Mr.  Thomas,  missionary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  1706,  in  South  Carolina  Historical 
and  Genealogical  Magazine,  v,  p.  42. 

8  Douglass,  A  Summary,  Historical  and  Political,  etc.,  i,  p.  175. 


286  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [538 

Dean  Berkeley  who  repeatedly  visited  Narragansett  to 
examine  the  conditions  and  character  of  the  Indians  of  that 
locality,  in  his  sermon  before  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  at  its  anniversary  in 
1731,  bears  witness  to  such  destruction  in  the  following 
statement :  "  The  native  Indians,  who  are  said  to  have  been 
thousands  within  the  compass  of  this  colony,  do  not  at  pres- 
ent amount  to  a  thousand,  including  every  age  and  sect; 
.  .  .  the  English  [having]  contributed  more  to  destroy 
their  bodies  by  the  use  of  strong  liquors,  than  by  any  means 
to  improve  their  minds  or  save  their  souls.  This  slow 
poison,  jointly  operating  with  the  small-pox,  and  their 
wars,  (but  much  more  destructive  than  both),  has  con- 
sumed the  Indians,  not  only  in  our  colonies,  but  also  far 
and  wide  upon  our  confines."  1 

Intestine  wars,  often,  as  has  been  seen,  fostered  by  the 
whites,  resulted  in  great  loss  of  numbers  to  the  Indians, 
and  sometimes  even  destroyed  whole  tribes.  In  conse- 
quence of  a  war  between  the  Yoamaco  Indians  of  Mary- 
land and  the  Susquehanna,  the  former  disappeared.2  In 
Virginia,  between  1609  and  1669,  spirituous  liquors,  the 
small-pox,  war  and  a  diminution  of  territory  reduced  the 
tribes  to  one-third  of  their  original  number.3  During  the 
next  twenty  years  they  had  become  so  much  weakened  that 
three  of  their  principal  tribes  were  able  to  send  to  a  great 
Indian  congress  only  four  representatives,  including  attend- 
ants. By  the  end  of  the  next  century  all  had  perished,  ex- 
cept three  or  four  of  one  tribe,  ten  or  twelve  of  another,  and 
a  few  women  only  of  a  third.4 

1  Updike,  History  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Narragansett,  Rhode 
Island,  p.  177. 

2  Oldmixon,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  187,  189. 

'  Jefferson,  Notes  on  the  State  of  Virginia,  edition  of  1787,  p.  153. 
4  Ibid.,  edition  of  1787,  pp.  154,  155- 


5391  THE  DECLINE  OF  !NDIAN  SLAVERY  287 

By  1780  all  the  Indian  nations  of  the  territory  settled 
by  the  English  in  the  south  were  either  extinct  or  had  re- 
treated westward  and  had  united  with  the  neighboring 
Cherokee  and  Creeks.  At  this  time  the  Catawba  were  so 
reduced  that  they  possessed  but  seventy  or  eighty  men.1 
The  Westo  and  Savannah  were  likewise  reduced  from 
many  thousands  to  small  numbers,2  and  the  Corannine  tribe 
was  practically  destroyed.3 

Another  cause  which  contributed  in  a  measure  to  the 
passing  of  Indian  slavery  was  the  amalgamation  of  the 
red  and  black  slaves.  Since  intercourse  and  marriage  of 
slaves  were  not  generally  interfered  with  by  the  whites,  it 
was  natural  that  the  slaves  of  the  red  and  black  races  should 
intermingle.  Since,  also,  the  Indians  were  generally  in  the 
minority,  as  well  as  inferior  in  power  of  resistance,  their 
physical  characteristics  gradually  disappeared,  while  those 
of  the  negro  remained. 

By  his  very  constitution,  furthermore,  the  Indian  seemed 
unfitted  for  servitude.  He  was  highly  susceptible  to  cli- 
matic changes,  and  unable  to  endure  sustained  labor.  In 
his  native  condition  he  was  accustomed  at  times  to 
great  tests  of  physical  endurance,  which,  however,  alter- 
nated with  periods  of  rest  and  recuperation.  Though  au- 
thorities may  differ  as  to  the  capacity  of  the  Indian  for 
civilization,  the  fact  remains  that  civilization  has  only  to  a 
very  small  extent  been  assimilated  by  the  red  man.  Taking 
into  due  consideration  the  treatment  accorded  him  by  the 
whites,  the  conclusion  seems  warranted  that  such  lack  of  as- 

1  Letter  of  Samuel  Thomas,  missionary  in  South  Carolina  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  1706, 
in  South  Caro'ina  Historical  and  Genea'og'cal  Magazine,  1904,  v,  p.  42; 
Letter  of  Henry  Laurens,  1780,  in  Moore,  Materials  for  History  printed 
from  Original  Manuscripts  with  Notes  and  Illustrations,  p.  187. 

a  Archdale,  op.  cit.,  in  Carroll,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  88-89. 

'  Ibid.,  ii,  p.  89. 


288  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [540 

similation  is  due  in  some  measure  to  the  inability  of  the  In- 
dian to  develop  beyond  the  stage  which  he  had  already 
reached  when  discovered  by  the  Europeans.  Furthermore, 
the  dominant  idea  of  Indian  life  was  the  love  of  liberty. 
Heredity  and  environment  cooperated  to  make  the  Indian  a 
creature  opposed  to  all  restraint  when  exercised  by  an  ex- 
terior force.1 

The  general  conclusion,  therefore,  so  far  as  it  can  be  de- 
termined by  individual  testimony,  colonial  legislative  action 
and  the  comparative  values  of  Indian  and  negro  slaves,  is 
that  Indian  slave  labor  within  the  territory  under  discus- 
sion was  not,  as  a  rule,  satisfactory.  Mason  records  that 
the  captives  distributed  among  the  colonists  as  slaves  at 
the  close  of  the  Pequot  War  "  could  not  endure  that  yoke ; 
few  of  them  continuing  any  considerable  time  with  their 
masters  ".2  Mayhew  tells  in  1690  of  the  tendency  to  run 
away  shown  by  the  Indian  slaves  of  Massachusetts.3  Moses 
Marcy  of  Oxford,  Massachusetts,  had  an  Indian  woman 
sold  him  by  the  general  court  prior  to  1747.  In  that  year 
he  was  discharged  from  his  bond,  she  having  "  made  way 
with  herself  after  having  tried  to  murder  her  mistress  .  .  . 
run  off  and  not  heard  from  since  ".4  It  is  stated  that  the 
Indian  female  slaves  of  New  England  could  not  be  taught 
to  sew,  to  wash  clothes,  or  to  render  any  valuable  domestic 
service ;  5  and  that  the  Indian  slaves  of  Rhode  Island  "only 

1  It  is  perhaps  true  that  the  Indians  of  the  territory  occupied  by  the 
English  colonists  of  America  possessed  certain  inherent  characteristics 
which  made  them  less  desirable  as  servants  or  slaves  than  those  used 
by  the  Spaniards  in  Mexico  and  South  America,  and  that  they  had 
less  fear  and  dread  of  the  whites  than  the  Indians  farther  south. 

*  Mason,  A  Brief  History  of  the  Pequot  War,  etc.,  in  Orr,  op.  cit., 
P.  39- 

*  Mayhew,  Indian  Converts,  p.  26. 

4  Daniels,  History  of  the  Town  of  Oxford,  Massachusetts,  p.  44. 

6  Dorr,  The  Narragansetts,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, vii,  p.  210;  Wood,  Neiv  England's  Prospect,  Prince  Society 
edition,  p.  73. 


5/j.i  ]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  28g 

became  efficient  workmen  under  a  stern  and  vigorous  dis- 
cipline "/  Sir  Robert  Mountgomry,  who  advocated  in 
1717  the  establishment  of  a  colony  south  of  Carolina,  urged 
the  use  of  indentured  white  servants,  so  that  there  might 
be  "  no  necessity  to  use  the  dangerous  help  of  Blackamoors 
or  Indians  ".2 

The  various  laws,  already  discussed  in  another  connec- 
tion, and  the  numerous  newspaper  advertisements  show  In- 
dian slaves  to  have  been  as  much  given  to  running  away  as 
their  negro  companions.  In  fact  it  seems  not  unlikely  that 
they  were  more  inclined  toward  trying  to  escape,  for  the 
possible  chance  of  returning  to  their  own  people  offered 
greater  inducements  for  such  an  act  than  in  the  case  of 
negroes. 

Indian  slaves  as  well  as  negroes  were  implicated  in  the 
various  slave  disturbances  which  occurred  from  time  to 
time  in  the  different  colonies.  Though  there  seems  no  evi- 
dence that  Indians  were  usually  more  instrumental  than 
negroes  in  creating  these  disturbances,  yet  their  not  infre- 
quent participation  in  such  events  tended  to  lower  the  colo- 
nists' estimate  of  their  value,  and  led  to  definite  legislation 
seeking,  by  preventive  measures  and  by  decreeing  severe 
punishments  in  case  of  conspiracies  or  uprisings,  to  avoid 
the  danger  which  the  colonists  feared. 

Legislation  regarding  slave  conspiracies  and  uprisings 
was  general  throughout  the  English  colonies  from  an  early 
date.  In  some  of  these  acts  Indian  slaves  were  expressly 
mentioned.  In  others  they  were  included  by  implication  in 
the  general  term  "  slaves  "  or  in  the  expression  "  negroes 

1  Dorr,  op.  cit.,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections,  vii, 
P.  233. 

2  Force,  Tracts  and  other  Papers  relating  principally  to  the  Origin, 
Settlement  and  Progress  of  the  Colonies  in  North  America,  etc.,  i, 
p.  10. 


290  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [542 

and  other  slaves  ".  Reference  will  be  made  to  only  those 
acts  which  include  Indian  slaves  by  express  mention.  A 
South  Carolina  act  of  1690  related  to  Indian  and  negro 
slaves  striking  a  white  person.1  The  Spanish  Indians  were 
evidently  considered  especially  undesirable,  for  an  act 
passed  in  1722  stated  that  "  the  importation  of  Spanish 
Indians,  mustees,  negroes  and  mulattoes  may  be  of  danger- 
ous consequence.  .  ."  '  In  1703,  Massachusetts  passed  "an 
act  to  prevent  disorder  in  the  night  ".  The  preamble  reads : 
"  whereas  great  disorders,  insolences  and  burglaries  are 
oftimes  raised  and  committed  in  the  night  time  by  Indian, 
negro  and  mulatto  servants  and  slaves.  .  .  ."  3  As  late  as 
1769  Connecticut  passed  an  act  relating  to  any  disturbance 
created  by  "  any  Indian,  negro,  or  mulatto  slave."  *  The 
murder  by  an  Indian  man  slave  and  a  negro  woman  of  an 
entire  white  family  in  Queens  County,  New  York,  led  to 
the  passage  of  an  act,  October  30,  1708,  to  prevent  the  con- 
spiracy of  Indian  and  negro  slaves.5  A  Philadelphia  ordi- 
ance,  also,  of  July  3,  1738,  dealt  with  "the  tumultuous 
meetings  and  other  disorderly  doings  of  the  negroes,  mu- 
lattoes and  Indian  servants  and  slaves  within  the  city  ".6 

A  second  class  of  colonial  laws  related  to  Indian  slaves 
alone  and  show  that  in  certain  of  the  colonies  the  inhabi- 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  343.  Other  acts 
were  passed  by  South  Carolina  in  1712,  1735,  1740,  1743,  and  1783, 
relating  to  slave  conspiracies  and  uprisings.  The  omission  in  these 
acts  of  direct  reference  to  Indian  slaves  is  probably  due  to  the  fact 
that  negro  slaves  were  in  the  majority. 

*  Ibid.,  iii,  p.  196.  s  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  535. 

4  Acts  and  Laws  of  Connecticut,  edilion  of  1769,  p.  185;  Dillon, 
Oddities  in  Colonial  Legislation,  p.  242. 

6  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  edition  of  1894,  i»  P-  631.  New  York 
passed  other  laws  in  1712  and  1730  relating  to  the  uprisings  and  con- 
spiracy of  slaves. 

6  Watson,  Annals  of  Philadelphia,  i,  p.  62. 


543]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  291 

tants,  for  definite  reasons,  feared  the  presence  of  too  many 
Indian  slaves  among  them.  Such  were  the  laws  passed  by 
the  northern  colonies  at  the  time  of  the  Tuscarora  War,  by 
which  they  sought  by  means  of  heavy  duties  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  such  dangerous  slaves.1  The  preamble  of 
the  Massachusetts  act  of  1713,  for  example,  reads: 
"  Whereas  divers  conspiracies,  outrages,  barbarities,  mur- 
ders, burglaries,  thefts  and  other  notorious  crimes  and 
enormities,  at  sundry  times,  and  especially  of  late,  have  been 
perpetuated  and  committed  by  Indian  and  other  slaves 
within  several  of  her  majestie's  plantations  in  America, 
being  of  a  malicious,  surley  and  revengeful  spirit,  rude  and 
insolent  in  their  behaviour,  and  very  ungovernable, 
the  over-great  number  and  increase  whereof  within  this 
province  is  likely  to  prove  of  pernicious  and  fatal  con- 
sequences to  her  majestie's  subjects  and  interest  here 
unless  speedily  remedied,  and  is  a  discouragement  to 
the  importation  of  white  Christian  servants,  this  prov- 
ince being  differently  circumstanced  from  the  planta- 
tions in  the  islands,  and  having  great  numbers  of  the 
Indian  natives  of  the  country  within  and  about  them, 
and  at  this  time  under  the  sorrowful  effects  of  their  re- 
bellion and  hostilities.  .  .  ."  2  The  Connecticut  act  passed 
in  August,  1715,  likewise  for  the  purpose  of  checking  the 
importation  of  Indians  into  the  colony,  is  a  transcript  of  the 
Massachusetts  act  and  shows  that  the  colonists  considered 
a  large  Indian  slave  element  in  the  population  to  be  quite 
as  undesirable  as  did  the  people  of  Massachusetts.3  The 
New  Hampshire  act  of  1714  cited  as  a  reason  for  checking 
the  importation  of  Indians :  "  the  over-great  number  and 
increase  of  such  slaves  within  the  province  is  likely  to  prove 

1  See  above,  pp.  233-240.  2  Acts  and  Resolves,  i,  p.  698. 

8  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  v,  p.  233. 


292  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [544 

of  fatal  and  pernicious  consequences  to  her  majesty's  sub- 
jects and  interests  here  unless  speedily  remedied  "-1  The 
Rhode  Island  act  of  July  5,  1715,  similarly  was  passed  to 
prevent  the  importation  of  Indian  slaves,  because  "  divers 
conspiracies,  insurrections,  rapes,  thefts,  and  other  ex- 
ecrable crimes  have  been  lately  perpetrated  in  this  and  the 
adjoining  colonies  by  Indian  slaves,  etc." 

Again,  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  the  use  of  hired  Indian 
servants  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  the  passing  of 
Indian  slavery,  though  the  influence  was  probably  slight. 
Very  early  in  the  history  of  the  northern  colonies,  Indians 
were  employed  for  wages.  The  need  for  laborers  could 
thus  be  partly  met  at  very  little  cost.  A  Frenchman  resid- 
ing in  Boston  in  1687,  records  the  wages  of  such  servants 
who  worked  in  the  fields  as  "  a  shilling  and  a  half  a  day  and 
board  which  is  eighteen  pence  ".3 

The  number  of  such  Indians  employed  was  generally 
small.  As  a  hired  laborer  the  Indian  was  no  more  re- 
liable or  trustworthy  than  as  a  slave.  The  keeping  of 
Indians  in  the  colonists'  families  was  always  considered  to 
be  more  or  less  dangerous.  Massachusetts,  in  1631,*  and 
Virginia,  in  i66i,5  required  that  all  persons  should  get 
special  licenses  before  employing  Indians.  In  1634, 
Winthrop  and  his  son  did  so.  Winthrop  himself 
speaks  of  the  "  Indians  which  are  in  our  families  ",  6  and 

1  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  edition  of  1771,  p.  53. 

1  Records  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  iv,  pp.  193-194. 

3  Report  of  a  French  Protestant  Refugee  in  Boston,  1687,  Fisher's 
translation,  p.  20. 

4  Winsor,  The  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  i,  p.  489. 

6  Hening,  op  cit.,  ii,  p.  143.  For  a  petition,  October  25,  1711,  to 
Governor  Spotswood  for  such  a  permit  to  employ  an  Indian  man  and 
woman,  see  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  i,  p.  150. 

6  Winthrop,  Journal,  i,  p.  260,  in  Original  Narratives  of  Early  Ameri- 
can History. 


545]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  293 

mention  of  his  Indian  servant  is  found  in  other  connec- 
tions.1 As  the  colony  grew  stronger  and  the  fear  of  the 
Indians  passed  away,  other  leading  men  of  Massachusetts, 
such  as  Thomas  Morton,2  the  Reverend  Mr.  Pariss,3  Isaac 
Addington,  secretary  of  the  Council  of  Safety  in  1714,* 
and  John  Eliot 5  employed  such  servants.  The  law  was  re- 
pealed in  1646,  "  there  being  more  use  of  encouragement 
thereto  than  otherwise."  6  That  a  similar  employment  of 
Indians  existed  in  Plymouth  is  seen  by  the  act  of  1651 
which  shows  the  danger  to  the  colony  in  providing  such  ser- 
vants with  firearms.7  The  Praying  Indians  hired  them- 
selves to  the  whites.8  The  New  England  whale  fisheries 
employed  hired  Indians,  at  least  from  1670  to  i68o.9  Dur- 
ing the  publication  of  the  New  Testament  in  Massachusetts 
in  1661,  and  the  translation  of  the  New  and  Old  Testa- 
ments and  the  Psalms  into  the  Indian  language  by  John 
Eliot  in  1663,  Green,  the  printer,  was  assisted  in  his  work 
by  an  Indian  apprentice.10  In  Little  Compton,  Massachu- 
setts, hired  Indians  were  largely  engaged  in  building  stone 
fences.11  In  1659  and  1660,  the  people  of  Connecticut  were 

1  Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  etc.,  ii,  p.  188. 

2  Morton,  The  New  English  Canaan,  in  Force's  Tracts,  ii,  p.  48. 
8  Peabody,  Life  of  Cotton  Mather,  p.  223. 

4  Sewall's    Diary,    in    Massachusetts   Historical    Society    Collections, 
series  5,  vii,  p.  30. 

5  Drake,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  ninth  edition,  ii,  p.  in. 

6  Winsor,  The  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  i,  p.  489. 

7  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  xi,  p.  59. 

8  Gookin,  op.  cit.,  in  American  Antiquarian  Society  Collections,  1836, 
»,  P.  434- 

9  Weeden,  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England,  i,  p.  433, 
435,  443,  447- 

10  Professional  and  Industrial   History   of  Suffolk   County,   Massa- 
chusetts, Hi,  p.  398. 

11  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  first  series,  ix,  p.  201. 
We  are  told  that  only  by  being  "  flagellated  "  were  these  Indians  made 
to  perform  their  labor  according  to  their  contracts. 


294  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [546 

employing  the  Mohegan  Indians  in  agricultural  labor,1  and 
the  use  of  hired  Indians  is  reported  in  the  colony  in  I774-2 
By  1731  most  of  the  Indians  remaining  in  Narragansett 
were  servants  in  families.3  The  records  also  of  South- 
ampton, New  York,  show  the  employment  of  Indians  for 
hire.4 

It  was  a  part  of  the  Puritan  missionary  scheme  to  win 
the  heathen  to  Christianity  by  employing  them  in  their 
homes  where  they  might  be  brought  into  contact  with  the 
workings  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  this  manner  they 
hoped  to  bring  the  savages  to  a  state  preparatory  to  con- 
version.5 Something  of  the  same  purpose  was  intended  by 
the  early  Virginia  colonists.  Hence,  in  1619,  their  first  legis- 
lative assembly  ordered  that  every  plantation  should  pro- 
cure Indian  youths  by  just 'means  for  this  purpose.6  In 
1774,  the  governor  of  Connecticut,  in  reply  to  various  in- 
quiries made  by  the  home  government  regarding  conditions 
in  the  colony,  stated  that  there  were  then  1,363  Indians  in 
the  colony,  and  that  many  of  them  dwelt  in  English  fami- 
lies.7 A  similar  statement  was  made  in  1731  by  Dean 
Berkeley  to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts.  He  declared  that  nearly  all  the  native 
Indians  of  Rhode  Island  were  at  that  time  servants  or 
laborers  for  the  English.8 

1  Steiner,  History  of  the  Plantation  of  Menunkatuck,  p.  72. 
1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  i,  ix,  p.  78. 
'  Updike,  History   of  the  Episcopal   Church   in  Narragansett,   etc., 
P-  177. 

4  Records  of   the    Town   of  Southampton,  Long  Island,   bk.   ii,   pp. 
56-59,  72. 

5  Love,  Samson  Occom  and  the  Christian  Indians  of  New  England, 
p.  5;  New  England's  First  Fruits,  in  Sabin's  Reprints,  quarto  edition. 
No.  vii,  p.  6. 

•  Bruce,  Institutional  History  of   Virginia  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, i,  p.  5. 

7  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  i,  ix,  p.  78. 

8  Updike,  op.  cit.,  p.  177. 


547]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  295 

Some  of  the  earliest  of  the  indentured  servants  used  in 
America,  moreover,  were  Indians.  Reference  has  already 
been  made  to  the  Massachusetts  law  of  1700  seeking  to 
avoid  the  abuse  of  the  custom.  In  1674,  Plymouth  passed 
a  law  providing  that  both  Indians  who  lived  idly  and  those 
who  did  not  pay  their  debts  on  conviction  could  be  handed 
over  to  those  to  whom  they  were  indebted  or  to  others  as 
bond  servants.1  The  Southold  town  records  mention  In- 
dian apprentices  in  i678.2  Indentured  male  and  female 
Indians  existed  in  Salem  in  i685.3  Similar  records  of  In- 
dian apprentices  and  indentured  servants  exist  for  Rhode 
Island,4  Connecticut,5  New  Jersey  6  and  New  York.7  As  a 
rule  these  bond  servants  were  young,  for  they  were  then 
more  easily  trained  and  were  more  tractable  and  useful. 
In  Virginia,  in  every  agreement  between  Indian  parents  and 
whites,  a  covenant  had  to  be  entered  into  providing  that  the 
child  be  instructed  in  the  Christian  religion.8 

One  of  the  most  important  causes  for  the  passing  of  In- 
dian slavery  is  found  in  the  introduction  of  indentured 
white  servants.  Almost  from  the  time  of  the  earliest 
settlements  these  servants  were  an  institution  in  the 
English  colonies.  Some  of  them  were  persons  who  entered 
voluntarily  into  temporary  bond  service  to  pay  for  passage 
to  the  new  world.9  Some  were  prisoners  of  war.10  Others 

1  Plymouth  Colony  Records,  xi,  p.  237. 

1  Southold  Town  Records,  p.  154.  3  Weeden,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  292. 

4  The  inventory  of  the  estate  of  Samuel  Gorton  of  Providence  shows 
that  he  possessed  apprenticed  Indian  servants.  The  Early  Records  of 
the  Town  of  Providence,  xvi,  pp.  243,  244. 

6  Walker,  History  of  the  First  Church  in  Hartford,  p.  255. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  series  i,  xx,  p.  HI;  xxvi,  p.  458. 

7  Baird,  History  of  Rye,  p.  192.  8  Hening,  op.  cit.,  \,  p.  410. 
9  The  so  called  "  redemplioners." 

10  Several    hundred    Scotchmen    taken    prisoners    by    Cromwell    were 
sent  to  Boston.     Morton,  New  England's  Memorial,  p.  86. 


296  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [548 

were  convicts  sent  into  exile  for  punishment.1  These  white 
servants  were  so  much  desired  by  the  colonists  that  requests 
were  not  infrequently  sent  to  England  for  them.2  To  en- 
courage their  voluntary  coming,  the  colonial  authorities 
sometimes  offered  them  special  inducemnts.3 

The  number  of  such  servants  in  the  different  colonies 
varied  according  to  conditions  in  America  and  England. 
Naturally  their  number  was  greatest  where  their  work 
was  most  needed.4  Whatever  their  condition  before 
coming  to  America  and  whatever  the  reason  for  their  com- 
ing,5 their  productivity  of  labor,  native  intelligence  and 

1  In  New  Netherland  many  girls  from  the  almshouses  of  Holland 
served  as  indentured  servants.  Van  Rensselaer,  History  of  the  City 
of  New  York  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  i,  p.  466. 

1  Such  a  request  was  sent  to  the  Virginia  Company  in  1620.  Ab- 
stracts  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Virginia  Company  of  London,  i, 
p.  92. 

8  Penn  offered  on  certain  conditions  fifty  acres  of  land  to  every 
servant  who  came  with  the  first  adventurers,  and  made  adequate  pro- 
visions in  the  Charter  of  Laws  for  the  servants'  protection  against 
being  cheated  or  abused  in  any  way  by  dishonest  masters.  For  a  dis- 
cussion of  indentured  servants  in  Pennsylvania,  see  Bolles,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Province  and  State,  ii,  pp.  173-182;  Diffenderffer,  German  Immi- 
gration into  Pennsylvania,  pt  iii;  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History, 
xxx,  p.  436;  xxxi,  p.  83;  Historical  Addresses  and  Papers  of  Lancaster 
Historical  Society,  x,  p.  331 ;  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  i,  iii,  iv, 
vi,  vii,  ix,  x,  xi.  In  1676,  the  Duke  of  York  provided  for  the  gov- 
ernment, protection,  and  final  dismissal  of  bond  servants  in  Delaware. 
Pennsylvania  German  Society  Proceedings,  x,  pp.  223-224. 

*  In  1671,  Governor  Berkeley  estimated  that  1500  white  servants  were 
arriving  annually,  and  at  that  time  out  of  a  total  population  of  40,000, 
six  thousand  were  indentured  servants.  Tucker,  Life  of  Jefferson, 
i,  p.  14;  Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  515.  In  the  time  of  Governor  Hamilton 
of  Pennsylvania,  it  was  estimated  that  there  were  60,000  imported 
white  servants  in  the  province.  Scharf  and  Westcott,  History  of 
Philadelphia,  i,  p.  190.  The  German  immigrants  more  than  met  the 
demand  for  servants  in  Pennsylvania.  Virginia,  Maryland  and  Penn- 
sylvania were  the  three  great  servant  importing  colonies. 

5  For  Connecticut,  see   Steiner,  History  of  Slavery  in  Connecticut, 


549]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  297 

acquaintance  with  the  customs  and  observances  of  civiliza- 
tion made  them  more  desirable  than  Indian  servants.  There 
were  forces,  also,  urging  them  to  go  to  America,  and 
forces  in  America  drawing  them  there.  So,  until  the  de- 
velopment of  the  traffic  in  negroes,  and  their  consequent 
greater  use,  the  indentured  white  servants  were  for  a  while 
perhaps  the  leading  factor  in  the  decline  of  Indian  slavery. 
Another  element  that  contributed  greatly  to  the  decline 
of  Indian  slavery  was  that  furnished  by  negro  slaves.  The 
rapidly  increasing  number  of  negroes  in  each  individual 
colony  attested  both  the  energy  of  trading  companies  and 
the  desire  of  the  colonies  for  the  negro  type  of  slave  labor. 
Both  indentured  white  servants  and  negro  slaves,  in  lact, 
far  outnumbered  the  Indian  slaves.  The  sources  from 
which  the  white  servants  and  the  negro  slaves  were  drawn 
were  well  nigh  inexhaustible,  whereas  the  sources  of  Indian 
slavery  were  limited.  From  these  limited  sources,  also, 
the  colonists  drew  but  in  a  small  degree.  White  servants 
and  negro  slaves  were  obtained  by  peaceful  means,  but  the 
acquisition  of  Indian  slaves  not  infrequently  meant  danger 
to  the  colony.  Behind  the  indentured  white  servants  and 
the  negroes  there  were  powerful  forces  supplying  them  to 
the  colonists  in  some  cases  even  faster  than  they  needed 
them.  Both  indentured  white  servants  and  negroes  proved 

in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xi ;  for  New  Hampshire,  Sanborn, 
New  Hampshire;  for  New  Jersey,  New  Jersey  Archives,  series  2,  i, 
p.  436;  for  Maryland,  McCormac,  White  Servitude  in  Maryland, 
1634-1820,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  xxii ;  for  Virginia, 
Ballagh,  White  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  Virginia,  in  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  xiii;  for  North  Carolina,  Bassett,  Slavery 
and  Servitude  in  North  Carolina,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies, 
xiv;  for  South  Carolina,  McCrady,  Slavery  in  the  Province  of  South 
Carolina,  1670-1770,  in  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical 
Association  for  1895,  and  Schaper,  Sectionalism  in  South  Carolina; 
for  Georgia,  Colonial  Records  of  Georgia,  i,  pp.  54,  259. 


29g  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [550 

more  easily  fitted  to  the  life  and  work  required  of  them 
by  their  masters,  their  labor  was  more  productive  and  they 
were  more  easily  controlled. 

Some  idea  of  the  relative  values  attached  to  Indian  and 
negro  slaves  may  be  obtained  by  a  comparison  of  the  prices 
for  which  they  were  sold.  In  Massachusetts,  for  instance, 
record  exists  of  the  sale  of  an  Indian  man  slave  in  New- 
bury,  in  1649,  f°r  "  the  quarter  part  of  a  vessel  'V  Sewall 
records  that  on  July  i,  1676,  nine  Indians  were  sold  for 
£3<D.2  An  inventory  of  1690,  on  the  other  hand,  appraised 
a  single  negro  at  £3O.3  In  the  inventory  of  an  estate  in 
Ipswich,  in  1683,  "  Lawrence  ye  Indian  "  was  valued  at 
£4.*  In  the  same  town  £5  was  paid  for  an  Indian  boy  and 
girl.5  The  Reverend  Mr.  Thacher  of  Milton,  in  1674,  paid 
£5  down  and  £5  more  at  the  end  of  the  year  for  an  Indian 
woman  slave.6  An  Indian  girl  brought  £15  at  Salem  in 
1710; 7  whereas  in  the  case  of  a  cargo  of  negroes  brought 
into  Boston  in  1727,  as  high  as  £80  was  paid  per  head.8 
In  the  settlement  of  an  estate  in  Newbury,  an  Indian  slave 
was  valued  at  an  early  date  at  £20.°  In  1708,  a  South 
Carolina  Indian  boy  was  sold  for  £35. 10  In  1713,  a  Span- 

1  Weeden,   op.   cit.,  i,  p.    153;    Coffin,  A   Sketch   of   the  History   of 
Newbury,  etc.,  p.  337. 

1  Sewall's   Diary,    in    Massachusetts    Historical    Society    Collections, 
series  5,  v,  p.  14. 
*  Moore,  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  p.  65. 

4  Publications  of  the  Ipswich  Historical  Society,  x,  p.  29;  Waters, 
Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  p.  217. 

5  Bodge,  Soldiers  in  King  Philip's  War,  p.  480;  Waters,  op.  cit.,  p.  217. 

6  Earle,  Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England,  p.  84. 

7  Essex  Institute  Historical  Collections,  i,  p.  14. 

8  Felt,  Annals  of  Salem,  second  edition,  ii,  p.  416. 

9  Currier,  History  of  Newbury,  p.  254;  Coffin,  op.  cit.,  p.  188. 
10 Coffin,  op.  cit.,  p.  336. 


55 1  ]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  299 

ish  Indian  boy  was  sold  in  the  same  town  for  £38.1  In 
1725,  a  negro  was  sold  in  Newbury  for  £100,  and  three 
other  negroes  were  valued  at  £132  6s.  8d.  in  colonial  cur- 
rency.2 In  1708,  an  Indian  was  sold  at  Salem  for  £32.* 
An  Indian  girl  was  sold  in  the  same  town  in  1710  for  £15.* 
A  negro  was  appraised  in  the  same  town  at  £40. 5  In  1764, 
a  negro  woman  was  sold  for  £8  133.  4d.6  In  Byfield  a 
negro  was  listed  in  the  inventory  of  an  estate  in  1689  at 
£60. 7  A  negro  given  to  Cotton  Mather  in  1706  was  pur- 
chased at  an  expense  of  £40  or  £5o.8  An  Indian  boy  was 
valued  in  Boston  in  1721  at  £20,  and  an  Indian  girl  at  £io.9 
In  Rhode  Island  the  prices  of  Indian  slaves  were  lower 
than  those  already  mentioned,  for  here  the  Indians  were 
sold  into  slavery  for  limited  periods  only.  The  average  price 
at  which  Indians  "  great  and  small  "  were  sold  in  the  col- 
ony, was  about  thirty-two  shillings.  Some  of  the  lot 
brought  into  Rhode  Island  at  the  close  of  King  Philip's 
War  sold  for  twelve  bushels  of  Indian  corn,  some  for  £2 
i os.  in  silver,  some  for  100  pounds  of  wool,  one.,  for  three 
fat  sheep,  two  for  twenty-two  bushels  of  Indian  corn.10 
One  sold  in  1677  at  Portsmouth  for  £4  los.11  Indian  slaves 
appear  among  other  effects  in  the  probate  inventories. 

1  Coffin,  op.  cit.,  p.  336. 
*  Currier,  op.  cit.,  p.  255. 

3  Essex  Institute  Historical  Collections,  x,  p.  79. 

4  Ibid.,  i,  p.  14.  5  Ibid.,  x,  p.  79. 
6  Ibid.,  xxxiv,  p.  64. 

1  Ewell,  The  Story  of  Byfield,  p.  65. 

8  Mather's   Diary    in   Massachusetts   Historical    Society    Collections, 
series  7,  vii,  p.  579. 

9  Bliss,  Side  Glimpses  from  the  Old  Meeting  House,  p.  16. 

10  Staples,  Annals  of  Providence,  second  edition,  p.  171 ;  Rhode  Island 
Historical  Society  Publications,  i,  p.  235;  Richman,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  192. 

11  The  Early  Records  of  the  Town  of  Portsmouth,  p.  433. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES 

They  were  appraised  at  £8  and  £10  each,  while  negroes 
were  valued  at  from  £60  to  £8o,1  with  an  average  price  of 
£50  for  an  able  negro  man  and  £40  for  a  woman.2  That 
is,  a  negro  laborer  was  reckoned  as  the  equivalent  of  five 
or  six  Indians.3  In  1718,  three  Indian  children  were  worth 
£23.*  An  inventory  in  1723  valued  the  two  years  and  ten 
months'  service  of  an  Indian  girl  at  £5.5 

The  inventory  of  the  estate  of  Gabriel  Harris  who  died 
in  1684  in  New  London,  Connecticut,  contained  the  item: 
"  An  Indian  maid  servant,  valued  at  £i5-6  An  Indian  slave 
of  Wethersfield  was  appraised  in  1662  at  £24.  A  negress 
and  child  belonging  to  the  same  estate  were  at  the  same 
time  appraised  at  £22. 7  In  Derby,  Connecticut,  an  Indian 
woman,  twenty-six  years  old,  sold  in  1722  for  £6o.8 

The  inventory  of  a  New  Jersey  estate,  in  1714,  included 
an  Indian  man  valued  at  £n  53. 9  In  another  inventory, 
in  1725,  an  Indian  woman  was  valued  at  £3O.10  In  1711, 
an  Indian  woman  and  two  children  were  valued  at  £ioo.11 
Similar  inventories  valued  an  Indian  girl  in  1696  at  £30; 12 

I  Dorr,  The  Narragansetts,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Col- 
lections, vii,  p.  233. 

1  Weeden,  Early  Rhode  Island,  p.  143. 

8  Dorr,  op.  cit.,  in  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections,  vii, 
P.  233- 

*  Weeden,  op.  cit ,  p.  144. 

6  The  Early  Records  of  the  Town  of  Providence,  xvi,  p.  244. 

6  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Connecticut  bondmen  or  slaves  were 
often  called  "servants"  down  to  about  1700.  Adams  and  Stiles,  His- 
tory of  Ancient  Wethersfield,  i,  p.  700;  Caulkins,  History  of  New 
London,  p.  271;  Charleston  Year  Book,  1900,  p.  42.  (Appendix.) 

T  Adams  and  Stiles,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  700. 

8  Orcutt,  op.  cit.,  p.  Ivii. 

9  New  Jersey  Archives,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  20. 
10  Ibid.,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  29. 

II  Ibid.,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  37. 
18  Ibid.,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  62. 


553]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  301 

an  Indian  woman  in  1724  at  £30; 1  an  Indian  boy  in  1711 
at  £40  ;2  .  .  .  two  Indian  slaves  in  1726  at  £80;  and  two 
Indian  slaves  in  1730  at  £5O.3 

The  account  book  of  the  executor  of  Thomas  Smallcomb 
of  York  County,  Virginia,  1646,  contains  the  following 
items : 4  "  By  two  Indians  sold  by  Sir  William  Berkeley, 
600  Ibs.  By  two  Indians  sold  by  Sir  John  Hammon,  500  Ibs. 
By  two  Indians  sold  by  Captain  Thomas  Fetters,  600  Ibs." 
In  the  records  of  Surrey  County,  1659,  occurs  the  follow- 
ing deed :  "  Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  King 
of  Waineoakes,  do  firmly  bargaine  and  make  sale  unto 
Eliz.  Short,  her  heires,  executors  or  Assignes  a  boy  of  my 
nacon,  named  Weetoppen,  from  the  day  and  date  herself 
untill  the  full  terme  of  his  life,  in  consideracon  whereof  I, 
the  said  Elizabeth  Short,  doth  for  myself,  my  heires,  ex- 
ecutors or  Assignes  ingage  to  deliver  and  make  sale  unto 
the  above  said  kinge  a  younge  horse  foale,  aged  one  yeare, 
in  full  satisfacon  for  above  said  boy  to  enjoy  for  her 
pper  use  forever.  In  witness  thereof,  wee  ye  above  speci- 
fied, have  set  our  hands  ".5 

The  inventory  of  a  North  Carolina  estate  in  1693  valued 
a  negro  and  his  wife  at  £40,  an  Indian  woman  and  her  child 
at  £15,  and  an  Indian  boy  at  £i2.6  A  bill  of  sale,  March 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  65. 
8  Ibid.,  series  i,  xxiii,  p.  67. 

3  Ibid.,   series   i,  xxiii,  472.     In  these  New  Jersey  inventories,  the 
Indian  slaves  were  regarded  as  personal  estate. 

4  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  vi,  p.  214.     The  "  Ibs  "  refer 
to  tobacco,  the  medium  of  purchase  in  early  Virginia. 

5  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  vi,  p.  214.    This  is  the  deed 
which  has  already  been  referred  to  as  having  been  set  aside  by  the 
House  of  Burgesses.     Hening,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  155.     Cf.  above,  p.  270. 

6  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina,  ii,  p.  577. 


302  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [554 

5,  1711,  shows  an  Indian  between  twenty  and  thirty-five 
years  of  age  sold  for  £14.  *  In  1713,  the  council  of  North 
Carolina  decreed  that  "  King  Blount "  might  have  eight 
Indians  to  ship  to  the  West  Indies  at  f  10  per  head.2  The 
average  price  for  the  Indian  captives  taken  in  the  Tusca- 
rora  War  and  sold  as  slaves  to  the  islands  and  the  northern 
colonies  appears  to  have  been  about  £10  each.3 

A  South  Carolina  law  of  1719  states  that  an  Indian  slave 
was  of  much  less  value  than  a  negro.4  The  English  of 
South  Carolina,  according  to  the  French,  were  accustomed 
to  pay  (1714)  the  Indians  fifteen  pistoles  for  an  Indian 
slave,  while  the  French  were  able  to  purchase  them  for  115 
livres.5  The  English  sold  these  slaves  ordinarily  for  300 
or  400  livres.6 

A  comparison  of  these  prices  paid  for  Indian  slaves 
shows  much  variation  at  different  times  and  places.  In 
New  England  after  the  Indian  wars  the  prices  were  low, 
for  the  chief  object  of  the  government  was  to  get  rid  of  the 
captives.  In  localities  where  the  Indian's  labor  was  in 
greater  demand  the  prices  rose  and  appear  to  have  been 
highest  among  the  English  of  the  southern  colonies.  When 
compared  with  sums  paid  for  negroes  at  the  same  time  and 
place,  the  prices  of  Indian  slaves  are  found  to  have  been 
considerably  lower.  In  general  the  prices  of  slaves  in- 
creased during  the  years  preceding  the  Revolution,  but  the 
values  of  Indian  slaves  did  not  equal  those  of  negro  slaves. 

1  North  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  iii,  p.  270. 
8  Williamson,  History  of  North  Carolina,  i,  p.  289. 
8  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  ii,  p.  52. 
4  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  i'i,  p.  77. 
6  Mississippi  Provincial  Archives,  French  Domination,   Correspond- 
ance  Gencrale,  v,  1710-1715. 

6  Report  on  Canadian  Archives,  1905,  i,  p.  523;  Margry,  op.  cit., 
iv,  p.  544. 


555]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  303 

During  the  existence  of  Indian  slavery,  furthermore, 
there  was  never  any  general  expression  of  opinion  regard- 
ing it  either  in  England  x  or  America,  nor  are  there  many 
records  of  opinions  expressed  during  the  colonial  period  as 
to  the  right  or  wrong  of  enslaving  the  natives.  The  Eng- 
lish colonists  followed  the  Spanish  custom  of  reducing  the 
Indians  to  a  condition  of  slavery,  but  neither  the  English 
colonists  nor  the  English  government  heeded  the  example 
of  the  later  policy  of  the  Spanish  government  in  looking 
upon  Indian  slavery  as  unjust  and  declaring  it  illegal. 

That  personal  opinions  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the 
enslavement  of  Indians  were  not  more  generally  expressed 
is  not  altogether  strange.  The  enslavement  was  not  pre- 
meditated nor  did  it  spring  into  sudden  existence  through- 
out the  English  colonies,  but  began  here  and  there  in  var- 
ious colonies  at  various  times  and  for  various  reasons. 
The  custom  of  enslavement  came  from  the  necessity  of  dis- 
posing of  war  captives,  from  the  greed  of  traders  and  from 
the  demand  for  labor.  Individuals  in  the  colonies,  such  as 
officials  of  high  rank  and  church  leaders,  who  would  natur- 
ally be  expected  to  express  an  opinion  either  for  or  against 
the  custom,  themselves  held  Indian  slaves  quite  as  a  matter 
of  course,  and  found  no  necessity  for  discussing  their 
action.  Nor  did  the  possession  and  employment  of  Indian 
slaves  ever  become  sufficiently  extensive  to  present  any  of 
the  problems  which  later  attracted  the  attention  of  the  peo- 

1  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  definite  knowledge  of  the  enslavement 
of  Indians  existed  in  England.  The  public  cri'icism  of  the  play  and 
opera  "  Incle  and  Yarico,"  wh:ch  dealt  with  the  capture  of  two  Indian 
girls  in  America  and  their  subsequent  sale  in  Barbadoes,  because  the 
first  scene  was  laid  in  America,  tends  to  show  a  general  ignorance  on 
the  subject.  This  play  written  by  Coleman  and  told  in  story  by  Steele 
in  "The  Spectator,"  No  n,  March  13,  1710,  is  supposed  to  have  been 
founded  on  fact.  The  event  is  described  in  L;gon,  History  of  Bar- 
badoes, p.  55.  The  play  is  given  in  Inchbald,  British  Theatre. 


304  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [556 

pie  and  led  to  the  opposition  which  overthrew  negro  slavery 
in  several  of  the  colonies,  and  incidentally,  Indian  slavery 
as  well. 

Yet  throughout  the  history  of  Indian  slavery  certain  ex- 
pressions of  opposition  to  the  system,  usually  mild  in  nature, 
occurred  from  time  to  time.  In  the  English  colonies  there 
was  never  any  such  earnest  opponent  to  Indian  slavery  as 
the  Spaniard,  Las  Casas,  who  argued  directly  against  the 
enslavement  of  Indians  from  the  standpoint  of  the  injus- 
tice of  reducing  the  natives  to  such  a  condition.  Most  of- 
the  opposition  expressed  in  the  English  colonies  was  aimed 
at  some  specific  instance  of  harsh  treatment  or  cruel  pun- 
ishment of  which  enslavement  was  an  incident;  or  it  arose 
during  the  later  colonial  period  as  a  part  of  the  antagonism 
to  slavery  in  general ;  or,  as  was  the  case  in  South  Carolina, 
it  revealed  the  attitude  of  one  faction  of  the  government 
toward  the  actions  of  another  faction,  and  was  not  at  all 
concerned  in  abolishing  the  practice  of  enslaving  Indians 
as  such. 

The  system  adopted  by  Rhode  Island  at  the  time  of  King 
Philip's  War  of  using  the  captive  Indians  as  involuntary 
indentured  servants  for  short  periods  of  years,  was  antici- 
pated by  the  query  expressed  by  Roger  Williams  in  his 
letter  to  Governor  Winthrop,  September  18,  1637,  as  to 
whether  the  captive  Indians  whose  lives  were  spared  should 
not  be  retained  in  involuntary  servitude  for  short  periods  of 
time  and  then  be  released.1  This  spirit  of  opposition  to  the 
enslavement  of  Indian  captives  for  life,  shown  by  Rhode 
Island  during  both  the  Pequot  and  King  Philip  wars,  was 
somewhat  out  of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  times.  But 
it  should  be  noted  that  this  opposition  was  not  the  expres- 
sion of  the  entire  colony.  During  the  Pequot  War  it  repre- 
sented the  feeling  of  the  "  Liberal  Party  "  against  the  en- 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  4,  vi,  p.  214. 


557]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  305 

slavement  of  the  captive  Indians,  and  during  King  Philip's 
War  it  resulted  from  the  dominating  influence  of  the 
Quaker  element  in  the  government. 

The  opposition  of  John  Eliot  to  the  enslavement  of  In- 
dians during  King  Philip's  War  was  similar  to  that  shown 
by  Roger  Williams  during  the  Pequot  War,  though  per- 
haps it  was  prompted  by  a  more  nearly  unselfish  and  hu- 
manitarian motive.  Throughout  the  war  Eliot  remonstrated 
strongly  against  selling  the  captive  Indians  into  slavery. 
In  a  letter,  June  13,  1675,  to  the  governor  and  council  at 
Boston,  he  stated  his  reasons  for  opposing  the  enslavement 
of  the  captives.  He  first  urged  a  politic  reason :  that  such 
enslavement  was  likely  to  prolong  the  war  and  bring  still 
further  disaster  upon  the  land  by  rousing  the  Indians  to 
renewed  hostilities.  He  then  emphasized  the  Christian  atti- 
tude of  mercy  by  asserting  that  it  is  the  design  of  Christ 
"  not  to  extirpate  nations  but  to  Gospelize  them  ".  "  To 
sell  souls  for  money,"  he  continued,  "  seems  to  me  a  dan- 
gerous merchandise.  To  sell  them  away  from  all  means  of 
grace,  when  Christ  has  provided  means  of  grace  for  them, 
is  the  way  for  us  to  be  active  in  the  destroying  of  their 
souls."  His  plea  for  mercy  was  strengthened,  also,  by  call- 
ing attention  to  the  letters  patent  of  the  king  which  urged 
the  Indians'  conversion  rather  than  their  destruction.1 

Some  faint  opposition  to  the  enslavement  of  Indians  was 
expressed  by  Samuel  Sewall  of  Massachusetts  in  1706, 
called  forth  by  an  act  passed  by  Massachusetts  against  In- 
dians and  negroes.  Perhaps  something  was  accomplished 
by  the  protest,  though  the  act  either  failed  to  pass  or  was 
repealed,  since  no  trace  of  it  remains.2 

1  Massachusetts  Manuscript  Records,  xxx,  No.  173 ;  Plymouth  Colony 
Records,  x,  pp.  451-453;  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical 
Register,  vi,  p.  297  and  xxxii,  p.  299;  Winsor,  The  Memorial  History 
of  Boston,  i,  p.  322. 

1  Moore.  Notes  on   the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  p.  90. 


306  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [558 

In  1729,  Ralph  Sandiford  published  a  work  entitled: 
"  The  Mystery  of  Iniquity  in  a  Brief  Examination  of  the 
Practice  of  the  Times."  In  the  dedication  of  his  book,  he 
speaks  of  going  to  South  Carolina,  and  of  refusing  the 
bounty  of  a  rich  colonist  there  because  his  riches  had  been 
obtained  through  the  labor  of  negro  and  Indian  slaves.  He 
declares  that  negroes  and  Indians  who  are  the  Lord's  free- 
men cannot  be  slaves  to  Christians.1  He  further  asserts 
that  the  matter  he  is  aiming  at  is  "  this  trading  in  mankind, 
which  is  pernicious  to  the  Publick,  but  more  especially  to 
the  common-wealth  of  Israel ;  which  raised  forth  a  zeal  in 
Men  for  the  House  of  the  Lord,  which  would  have  even 
consumed  men  had  not  I  witnessed  against  this  rottenness 
and  hypocrisy  that  would  introduce  itself  amongst  the 
saints,  whereby,  as  way-marks,  they  lead  many  into  the 
same  corrupt  practice  which  is  contrary  to  the  Principal  of 
Truth,  which  is  over  the  Heads  of  such  Transgressors, 
that  the  Righteous  in  all  Churches  are  undefiled  with  it,  for 
their  Bodies  are  the  Temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  dwell  in, 
which  they  cannot  defile  with  Babylon,  who  is  Harloted 
from  the  Truth  to  feed  upon  the  Flesh  or  receive  nourish- 
ment from  the  blood  of  the  poor  Negro  or  Indian  captive, 
or  whomsoever  ravenous  Nature  (which  is  the  Beast's 
work)  has  power  to  prey  upon  ".2 

Granville  Sharp,  in  1767,  published  in  London  a  protest 
against  slavery,  in  which  he  declared  there  could  be  no  rea- 
sonable pretense  for  holding  either  negroes  or  Indians  in 
slavery.  In  discussing  the  bringing  about  of  a  state  of  slav- 

In  1700,  Sewall  had  publ:sbed  a  protest  against  slavery  in  general  in  the 
form  of  a  tract:  The  Selling  of  Joseph,  a  Memorial.  The  tract  did 
not  mention  Indian  slavery.  Moore,  op.  cit.,  pp.  83-87;  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society  Proceedings,  1863-1864,  pp.  161-165. 

1  Sandiford,  The  Mystery  of  Iniquity,  etc.,  p.  19. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  96. 


559]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  307 

ery  through  contract  he  declared  that  "  in  such  a  case  there 
would  still  remain  a  great  suspicion  that  some  undue  ad- 
vantage had  been  taken  of  the  Indians'  ignorance  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  such  a  bond."  Slavery  he  declared  a 
"  shameless  prostitution  and  infringement  on  the  common 
and  natural  rights  of  mankind."  Every  inhabitant  of  the 
king's  realm,  regardless  of  color,  he  declared  to  be  the 
king's  subject,  and  asserted  that  no  one,  therefore,  had  a 
moral  or  legal  right  to  enslave  any  such  subject.1  If  color 
were  a  basis  for  slavery,  he  argued,  then  in  a  short  time 
any  Englishman  might  be  enslaved  since  there  was  but  little 
difference  between  the  complexion  of  a  northern  Indian 
and  a  white  man.2 

Anthony  Benezet,  about  1750,  began  to  express  his  oppo- 
sition to  slavery  in  the  almanacs  and  newspapers  of  the  day. 
After  three  separate  publications  dealing  with  slavery  in 
general,  he  issued  in  1784  a  book  entitled  "  Some  Observa- 
tions on  the  Situation,  Disposition  and  Character  of  the  In- 
dian Natives  of  this  Continent."  In  this  he  refers  to  the 
kindness,  hospitality  and  generosity  of  the  Indians  toward 
the  English  in  the  early  days  of  trade,  and  laments  the  fact 
that  "  the  adventurers  from  a  thirst  of  gain  overreached  the 
natives  ",  so  that  the  latter  "  saw  some  of  their  friends  and 
relatives  treacherously  entrapped  and  carried  away  to  be 
sold  as  slaves  ".3 

Throughout  the  colonial  period  the  Society  of  Friends 
showed  more  or  less  opposition  to  slavery,  although  the 
members  of  the  Society  held  slaves.  From  1688  a  certain 
amount  of  agitation  concerning  the  matter  is  apparent  in 
the  records  of  the  various  quarterly  and  yearly  meetings 

1  Sharp,  Extract  from  a  Representation  of  the  Injustice,  etc.,  p.  15. 
J  Ibid.,  p.  13- 

3  Benezet,  Some  Observations  on  the  Situation,  Disposition,  etc.,  p.  9. 
In  a  footnote  he  refers  to  Hunt's  kidnapping  act. 


308 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES 


[560 


in  Pennsylvania  and  the  Jerseys.  In  the  records  of  the 
Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  for  the  year  1719,  is 
found  the  first  mention  of  Indian  slaves  made  in  the 
minutes  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  In  that  year,  after  an 
earnest  admonition  to  Friends  to  refrain  from  sell- 
ing, trading  or  exchanging  in  any  way  any  spiritu- 
ous liquors  with  the  Indians,  the  Yearly  Meeting  voted : 
"  And  to  avoid  giving  them  occasion  of  discontent,  it 
is  desired,  that  Friends  do  not  buy  or  sell  Indian  slaves."  * 
From  the  wording  of  the  record  it  may  be  concluded  that 
the  basis  for  the  Friends'  action  was  not  the  idea  of  any 
moral  wrongdoing  attached  to  the  enslavement  of  Indians, 
but  rather  the  possible  harm  that  might  come  to  the  colony 
through  the  discontent  which  enslavement  might  cause 
among  the  free  Indians.  And,  judging  from  the  previous 
action  of  the  Society  taken  with  regard  to  slavery,  it  may 
also  be  concluded  that  this  basis  for  the  opposition  to  the 
trade  in  Indian  slaves  was  used  as  a  means  of  calling  the 
immediate  attention  of  its  members  to  the  matter,  and  that 
the  reason  for  the  opposition  of  the  Meeting  to  trading  in 
Indians  was  the  same  as  that  to  negro  slavery :  "caution  not 
censure  ".2 

1  Records  of  the  Friends1  Yearly  Meeting  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Jersies,  p.  211;  Michener,  A  Retrospect  of  Early  Quakerism,  etc.,  pp. 
a6b,  341.  According  to  custom  the  action  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  was 
at  once  made  known  to  the  various  Quarterly  Meetings  within  its 
jurisdiction  by  extracts  from  its  minutes.  Such  extracts  recorded 
in  the  minutes  of  the  various  Quarterly  Meetings  for  the  year  1719 
contain  exactly  the  same  expression :  "And  to  avoid  giving  them 
occasion  of  discontent,  it  is  desired  that  Friends  do  not  buy  or  sell 
Indian  slaves." 

1  After  1719  the  records  show  the  opposition  of  the  Yearly  Meetii 
to  have  been  expressed  against  slavery  in  general,  and  no  mentioi 
is  made  of  Indian  slaves,  though  the  records  sometimes  read :  "  negrc 
and  other  slaves."  For  the  action  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  at  variot 
times  up  to  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Pennsylvania  ii 
1780,  see  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  Memoirs,  i,  p.  392  et  seq.: 


56i]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  309 

Some  criticism  was  expressed  in  Massachusetts  at  the 
seizure  of  the  Indians  at  Cocheco  in  1676,  and  the  subse- 
quent transportation  of  part  of  the  number  captured  by 
order  of  the  government.1  Such  criticism,  however,  was 
not  aimed  at  the  action  of  the  government  in  selling  the 
Indians  as  slaves,  but  at  the  breach  of  faith  in  seizing  In- 
dians at  peace. 

In  South  Carolina,  as  already  observed,2  the  proprietors 
sanctioned  enslavement  of  Indians  when  carried  on  for 
their  own  financial  benefit,  and  opposed  it  when  carried  on 
by  the  colonial  authorities.  The  colonial  officials  favored 
the  practice  and  carried  it  on  both  as  a  means  of  meeting 
colonial  expenses  and  as  a  source  of  personal  income.  In 
this  respect  the  action  of  the  existing  colonial  government 
of  South  Carolina  differs  materially  from  that  of  the  offi- 
cials of  any  other  colony.  Nowhere  else  was  the  desire  for 
personal  gain  a  controlling  cause  for  the  disposal  of  cap- 
tives taken  in  war  and  hence  colonial  property. 

In  contrast  to  these  incidental  expressions  of  personal 
opposition  to  the  enslavement  of  Indians,  stands  the  owner- 
ship and  employment  of  them  by  leading  colonists.3  The 

Sharpless,  A  History  of  Quaker  Government  in  Pennsylvania,  ii,  p. 
224  et  seq.;  American  Society  of  Church  Publications,  viii,  (article  by 
Allen  C.  Thomas)  ;  Michener,  A  Retrospect  of  Early  Quakerism,  etc. ; 
Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History,  xiii,  pp.  265  et  seq. 

1  Williamson,  The  History  of  the  State  of  Maine,  etc.,  i,  p.  539. 

2  Cf.  above,  pp.  173-174. 

1  Cotton  Mather,  Magnolia,  edition  of  1820,  ii,  p.  507;  Diary,  in 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  7,  vii,  pp.  22,  203 ; 
Increase  Mather,  Ibid.,  series  7,  viii,  p.  232;  The  Reverend  Mr.  Brown 
of  Haverhill  (1723),  Chase,  History  of  Haverhill,  pp.  239,  248;  The 
Reverend  Mr.  Thacher  of  Milton  (1674),  Earle,  Customs  and  Fash- 
ions in  Old  New  England,  p.  84;  the  Reverend  Mr.  Callicott  of  Dor- 
chester, Tooker,  Cockenoe-de-Long  Island,  p.  12;  John  Winthrop, 
Records  of  the  Court  of  Assistants,  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
i63o-i€92,  ii,  p.  91 ;  Daniel  Gookin,  New  England  Historical  and 


310  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [562 

New  En  glanders  not  only  bought  Indians  at  the  time  of  the 
Indian  wars,  but  also  sent  requests  to  the  colonial  officials 
for  them.  Captain  Stoughton  wrote  to  Governor  Win- 
throp  from  the  scene  of  the  Swamp  Fight :  "  By  this  pin- 
nace, you  shall  receive  48  or  50  women  and  children,  un- 
less there  stay  any  here  to  be  helpful,  concerning  which 
there  is  one,  I  formerly  mentioned,  that  is  the  fairest  and 
largest  amongst  them  to  whom  I  have  given  a  coate  to 
cloathe  her.  It  is  my  desire  to  have  her  for  a  servant,  if 
it  may  stand  to  your  good  liking,  else  not.  There  is  a  little 
squaw  that  steward  Culacut  desireth,  to  whom  he  hath 
given  a  coate.  Lieut.  Davenport  also  desireth  one,  to  wit, 
a  small  one,  that  has  three  strokes  upon  her  stomach.  .  .  . 
He  desireth  her,  if  it  will  stand  with  your  good  liking. 
Sosomon,  the  Indian,  desireth  a  young  little  squaw,  which 
I  know  not."  *  The  Reverend  Hugh  Peter  also  wrote  to 
Governor  Winthrop  in  1637:  "Mr.  Endecot  and  my  selfe 
salute  you  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  etc.  Wee  haue  heard  of  a 
diuidence  of  women  and  children  in  the  bay  and  would  bee 
glad  of  a  share  viz:  a  young  woman  or  girle  and  a  boy  if 
you  thinke  good :  I  wrote  to  you  for  some  boyes  for  Ber- 
mudas, which  I  thinke  is  considerable."  2  In  July,  1637, 
Roger  Williams  petitioned  Governor  Winthrop  for  an  In- 
dian as  follows :  "  It  having  againe  pleased  the  Most  High 
to  put  into  your  hands  another  miserable  drone  of  Adams 
degenerate  seede,  &  our  brethren  by  nature,  I  am  bold  (if 

Genealogical  Register,  viii,  p.  272;  Governor  Berkeley  of  Virginia, 
William  and  Mary  CoVege  Quarterly,  vi,  p  214;  Colonel  Pollock,  acting 
governor  of  North  Carol'na,  North  Carolinia  Colonial  Records,  ii, 
p.  52;  Governor  West  of  South  Carolina,  Hewat,  op  cit,  i,  p.  74;  and 
Governor  Moore  of  South  Carolina,  Hewat,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  140,  are  im- 
portant cases  in  point. 

1  Sylvester,  op.  cit.,  i,  p.  293;  Drake,  Book  of  the  Indians,  n'nth 
edition,  bk.  ii,  p.  107. 

*  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  4,  vi,  p.  95. 


563]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  ^n 

I  may  not  offend  in  it)  to  request  the  keeping  &  bringing 
vp  of  one  of  the  children.  I  haue  fixed  mine  eye  on  this 
litle  one  with  the  red  about  his  neck,  but  I  will  not  be  per- 
emptory in  my  choice,  but  will  rest  in  your  loving  pleasure 
for  him  or  any,  &c."  x  The  barrister,  Emanuel  Downing, 
writing  to  John  Winthrop  in  1645,  clearly  illustrates  the 
view  of  his  day.  He  says :  "  A  warr  with  the  Narraganset 
is  verie  considerable  to  this  plantation,  ffor  I  doubt  whither 
yt  be  not  synne  in  vs,  hauing  power  in  our  hands,  to  suffer 
them  to  maynteyne  the  worship  of  the  devill  which  their 
paw  wawes  often  doe;  2lie,  If  vpon  a  Just  warre  the  Lord 
should  deliuer  them  into  our  hands,  wee  might  easily  haue 
men  woemen  and  children  enough  to  exchange  for  Moores, 
which  wilbe  more  gaynefull  pilladge  for  vs  then  wee  con- 
ceive, for  I  doe  not  see  how  wee  can  thrive  vntill  wee  gett 
into  a  stock  of  slaves  sufficient  to  doe  all  our  buisines,  for 
our  children's  children  will  hardly  see  this  great  Continent 
filled  with  people,  soe  that  our  servants  will  still  desire  free- 
dome  to  plant  for  them  selues,  and  not  stay  but  for  verie 
great  wages.  And  I  suppose  you  know  verie  well  how  wee 
shall  maynteyne  20  Moores  cheaper  then  one  Englishe  ser- 
vant." * 

In  only  a  few  of  the  English-American  colonies  were  at- 
tempts made  by  legislative  enactment  to  end  Indian  slavery 
as  a  system  separate  from  negro  slavery.  The  reasons  for 
this  fact  are  obvious.  In  the  course  of  time  Indian  slavery 
became  absorbed  by  the  institution  of  negro  slavery  to  such 
an  extent  that  it  attracted  no  attention.  With  the  various 
colonial  acts  at  the  time  of  the  Tuscarora  War,  which  for- 
bade the  further  importation  of  Indians  into  the  northern 
colonies,  the  system  was  maintained  only  by  the  natural  in- 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  series  4,  vi,  pp.   195- 
196. 

2  Ibid.,  series  4,  vi,  p.  65. 


312  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [564 

crease  of  the  Indian  slaves  already  in  existence.  So  Indian 
slavery  existed  as  an  unimportant  system  along  with  and 
overshadowed  by  negro  slavery  until  the  spirit  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  institution  of  slavery  in  general  grew  sufficiently 
strong  to  lead  to  legislation  providing  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  various  colonies. 

The  first  colony  to  take  such  legislative  action  was  Vir- 
ginia, but  in  this  instance  there  is  a  slight  possibility  that 
the  intent  of  the  act  to  be  discussed  was  quite  different  from 
what  later  interpretations  have  considered  it  to  be.  In 
1691,  "by  implication  rather  than  by  the  terms  of  the  act  ", 
Indian  slavery  was  rendered  illegal  by  an  act  authorizing  a 
free  and  open  trade  for  all  persons,  at  all  times  and  all 
places,  with  all  Indians  whatsoever.1  It  is  barely  possible 
that  the  "  legislature  may  have  viewed  the  act  as  a  treaty 
with  a  nation  which,  ipso  facto,  was  recognized  as  of  equal 
status  as  to  freedom,  while  the  treaty  in  no  wise  prevented 
subsequent  enslavement  of  individuals  sold  by  the  nation 
itself  to  the  whites,  or  of  hostile  captives,  or  of  Indians  not 
native  North  Americans  as  generally  understood  ".2  But 
it  is  generally  considered  that  the  act  was  intended,  as  it 
was  later  construed,  to  acknowledge  the  free  condition  of 
all  Indians.  If  the  colonists  of  the  time  so  construed  it, 
they  intentionally  disobeyed  it  and  enslavement  of  Indians 
continued.  In  1705,  a  similar  act  was  passed  with  the  same 
enacting  clause.3  Cases  arising  later  showed  a  similar 
failure  to  accomplish  desired  results. 

In  1777,  the  assembly,  when  called  to  pass  upon  the 
matter,  decided  that  no  Indians  brought  into  Virginia  since 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1705,  or  their  descendants,  could 

1  Herring,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  267. 

*  Ballagh,  A  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  p.  50. 

*  Herring,  op.  cit.,  iii,  p.  468. 


565]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY 

be  slaves  in  the  commonwealth.1  At  that  time  knowledge 
of  the  existence  of  the  act  of  1691  seems  to  have  disap- 
peared.2 Even  after  the  decision  of  the  assembly  in  1777, 
the  settlement  of  the  matter  was  so  far  uncertain  as  to  give 
rise  to  certain  cases  in  law  in  1792  and  1793,  appealed  from 
the  County  Court  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  maintain  the 
right  to  the  services  of  the  descendants  of  Indians  enslaved 
after  the  passing  of  the  act  of  1705.  In  both  these  cases 
the  higher  court  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  lower  courts 
which  granted  freedom  to  the  Indians  thus  held  as  slaves, 
and  which  interpreted  the  act  of  1705  as  repealing  all 
former  acts  permitting  the  existence  of  Indian  slavery  in 
the  colony.3 

In  1806,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  decided  that  In- 
dians had  always  been  considered  free  persons  in  fact  and 
in  right,  and  that  the  presumption  was  that  all  Indians  in- 
troduced into  the  state  at  any  time,  were  prima  facie  pre- 
sumed to  be  free,  or  that,  if  the  date  of  their  introduction 
did  not  appear,  the  prima  facie  presumption  was  that  they 
were  American  Indians,  or  brought  in  after  the  act  of  1705, 
and  therefore  free.4  In  1808,  came  the  judicial  recognition 
of  the  law  of  1691.  A  Supreme  Court  decision  of  that  year 
declared  "  that  no  native  American  Indian  brought  into 
Virginia  since  the  year  1691  could  under  any  circumstances 
lawfully  be  made  a  slave.  It  was  also  held  by  the  court 
that  if  a  female  ancestor  of  a  person  asserting  a  right  to 

1  Tucker,  A  Dissertation  on  Slavery,  p.  35 ;  Wheeler,  A  Practical 
Treatise  of  the  Law  of  Slavery,  p.  19. 

a  See  Ballagh,  op  cit.,  p.  50,  for  a  discussion  of  the  disappearance  of 
this  act  Not  until  1806  was  it  discovered  that,  the  act  of  1705  was 
a  repetition  of  that  of  1691. 

8  Ballagh,  op.  cit,  p.  51 ;  i  Washington,  pp.  123  (Jenkins  v.  Tom), 
233  (Coleman  v.  Dick.) 

4  Wheeler,  op.  cit.,  p.  19,   (Hudgins  v.  Wright). 


314  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [56$ 

freedom,  whose  genealogy  could  be  traced  back  to  such 
ancestor  by  females  only,  be  proved  to  have  been  an  In- 
dian, "*it  seems  incumbent  on  those  who  claim  such  persoa 
as  a  slave  to  show  that  such  ancestor,  or  some  female  from 
which  she  descended,  was  brought  into  Virginia  between 
the  years  1679  and  1691,  and  under  circumstances  which, 
according  to  the  laws  then  in  force,  created  a  right  to  hold 
her  in  slavery."  l 

In  the  case  of  Butt  v.  Rachel  et  al.,  1814,  the  plaintiffs 
claimed  their  freedom  as  descendants  of  a  native  female 
Indian  who  was  brought  into  Virginia  about  the  year  1747. 
The  court  instructed  the  jury  that  no  native  American  In- 
dian brought  into  Virginia  since  the  year  1691,  could, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  made  a  slave.  The  defendant 
claimed  to  hold  the  slaves  on  the  ground  that  they  were  the 
descendants  of  a  native  American  Indian  woman  who  was 
held  as  a  slave  on  the  island  of  Jamaica,  and  brought  to 
Virginia  as  a  slave  about  the  year  1747.  The  defendant 
moved  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury  that  a  native  Ameri- 
can Indian  held  as  a  slave  on  the  island  of  Jamaica  by  the 
laws  of  that  island,  might  be  held  as  a  slave  when  imported 
into  Virginia.  The  court  refused  so  to  do,  and  judgment 
was  awarded  the  plaintiff.  The  case  was  appealed,  but  the 
court  sustained  the  judgment.2 

Considering  the  possibility  already  mentioned  that  the 
act  of  1691  may  have  been  intended  to  apply  only  to  In- 
dians outside  the  colony  and  that  it  did  not  apply  to  those  in 
the  colony,  either  free  or  enslaved,  and  the  fact  that  the 
later  legislative  action  of  1777  and  the  cases  in  law  already 
mentioned  show  that  the  law  was  either  misconstrued  or 

12  Hening  and  Munford,  p.  149  (Pallas  v.  Hill);  James,  Eng'ish 
Inst'tutions  and  the  American  Indians,  p.  47,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies,  xii. 

1  Wheeler,  op.  cit.,  p.  18. 


567]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY 

ignored,  the  acts  of  1691  and  1705,  so  far  as  putting  an 
end  to  Indian  slavery  in  Virginia  in  colonial  times  is  con- 
cerned, might  as  well  have  never  existed.1 

At  a  later  date,  South  Carolina  also  enacted  laws  which, 
by  court  decision,  were  interpreted  to  mean  the  abolition  of 
Indian  slavery.  The  act  of  1740  2  stated  that  "  all  negroes, 
Indians  (free  Indians  in  amity  with  this  government,  and 
negroes,  mulattoes,  or  mestizoes  who  are  now  free,  ex- 
cepted),  mulattoes,  or  mestizoes,  who  are  now  or  who  shall 
hereafter  be  in  this  province,  and  all  their  issue  and  off- 
spring born,  or  to  be  born,  shall  be,  and  they  are  hereby  de- 
clared to  be  and  remain  forever  hereafter,  absolute  slaves, 
and  shall  follow  the  condition  of  the  mother."  Under  this 
provision  it  has  been  uniformly  held  that  color  was  prima 
facie  evidence  that  the  party  bearing  the  color  of  a  negro, 
mulatto  or  mestizo,  was  a  slave;  but  the  same  prima  facie 
result  did  not  follow  from  the  Indian  color,  according  to 
the  decision  of  the  courts.3  After  the  passage  of  the  act, 
Indians  and  descendants  of  Indians  were  regarded  as  free 
Indians  in  amity  with  the  government,  until  the  contrary 
was  shown.  Elsewhere  in  the  act  of  1740  it  is  declared  that 
"every  negro,  Indian,  mulatto,  and  mestizo  is  a  slave  unless 
the  contrary  can  be  made  to  appear  ",  yet  in  the  same  act 
it  is  immediately  thereafter  provided — "  the  Indians  in 
amity  with  this  government  excepted,  in  which  case  the 

1  If  this  interpretation  of  the  acts  of  1691  and  1705  be  the  true  one, 
then  they  belong  in  the  same  class  with  the  acts  of  the  northern 
colonies  which  were  passed  at  the  time  of  the  Tuscarora  War  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  the  importation  of  Indians,  but  which 
did  not  aim  to  put  an  end  to  the  s  atus  of  slavery  as  applied  to  Indians. 

1  The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  vii,  p.  397.  By  previous 
acts  of  1712,  1722  and  1735;  South  Carolina  had  specified  who  were 
to  be  slaves.  Ibid.,  vii,  p.  352;  vii,  p.  371;  vii,  p.  385. 

3  3  Spears,  p.  128  (The  Sta'e  v.  Harden,  1832)  ;  i  Richardson,  p.  324 
(Nelson  v.  Whetmore,  1844). 


316  INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [568 

burden  of  the  proof  shall  lie  on  the  defendant  ",  that  is  on 
the  person  claiming  the  Indian  plaintiff  to  be  a  slave.  This 
latter  clause  of  the  provision  grew  to  be  considered  the  rule, 
and  so  the  race  of  slave  Indians,  or  of  Indians  not  in  amity 
with  the  government,  passed  out  of  existence  and  the  pre- 
vious part  of  the  provision  lost  its  application.1 

By  an  act  of  May  18,  1652,  passed  by  the  Commissioners 
of  Providence  Plantations  and  Warwick,  it  was  provided 
that  "  no  black  mankind,  or  white,  being  forced  to  cov- 
enant, bond  or  otherwise,  serve  any  man  or  his  assigns 
longer  than  ten  years,  or  until  they  come  to  be  twenty-four 
years  of  age,  if  they  be  taken  under  fourteen,  from  the  time 
of  their  coming  within  the  limits  of  this  colony,  and  at  the 
end  or  term  of  ten  years  to  set  them  free,  as  the  matter  is 
with  the  English  servants  ".2  The  act  makes  no  mention 
of  Indian  slaves,  doubtless  because  at  this  early  date  there 
were  not  enough  in  the  colony  to  arouse  interest  in  their 
condition. 

When  at  the  time  of  King  Philip's  War  Indian  slaves 
were  being  transported  by  Massachusetts  and  distributed 
among  the  settlements,  Rhode  Island,  March,  1676,  passed 
a  law  concerning  them  similar  to  the  law  of  1652  relating 
to  negroes.  This  act  provided  that  "  no  Indian  in  this  col- 
ony be  a  slave  but  only  to  pay  their  debts,  or  for  their  bring- 
ing up,  or  courtesy  they  have  received,  or  to  perform  cov- 
enant, as  if  they  had  been  countrymen  not  in  war."  8 

In  colonial  New  York  it  was  customary  to  discriminate 

1  O'Neall,  The  Negro  Law  of  South  Carolina,  p.  5. 

8  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
i,  P.  243. 

'  Laws  and  Acts  made  from  the  First  Settlement  of  Her  Majesties 
Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  said  Colony,  etc.,  edition  of  1705,  p.  54;  Upd'ke,  History 
of  the  Narragansett  Church,  p.  171 ;  Staples,  Annals  of  the  Town  of 
Providence,  second  edition,  p.  171. 


569]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  317 

between  the  free  natives  of  the  colony  and  those  brought 
from  the  Spanish  West  Indies.  On  December  5,  1679,  it 
was  voted  at  a  council  meeting  that  "  all  Indians  here  are 
free  and  not  slaves,  except  such  as  have  been  formerly 
brought  from  the  Bay  of  Campeachy  and  other  foreign 
parts  ",  some  of  whom  were  slaves  in  the  colony.  Con- 
cerning such  foreign  Indians  the  act  provided :  "  But  if  any 
shall  be  brought  hereafter  within  the  space  of  six  months, 
they  are  to  be  disposed  of  as  soon  as  may  be,  out  of  the 
government,  but  after  the  expiration  of  six  months,  all  that 
shall  be  brought  here  from  these  parts  shall  be  free  "-1  On 
April  20,  1680,  a  decree  of  governor  and  council  repeated 
this  resolution  as  a  formal  order.2  Apparently  no  imme- 
diate attention  was  given  to  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 
Later  some  action  regarding  the  matter  was  taken  when 
the  council,  October  n,  1687,  ordered  that  certain  Spanish 
Indians  brought  from  the  Bay  of  Campeachy  and  sold  as 
slaves  in  the  colony  should  be  set  free.3  On  July  30,  1688, 
the  council  again  took  up  the  question  of  foreign  Indians. 
It  was  resolved  "  that  all  Indian  slaves  within  this  province 
subject  to  the  King  of  Spain,  that  can  give  an  account  of 
their  Christian  faith  and  say  the  Lord's  Prayer,  be  forth- 
with set  at  liberty,  and  sent  home  by  the  first  conveyance, 
and  likewise  them  that  shall  hereafter  come  to  the  province.4 
On  the  same  day  the  council  rejected  a  petition  of  the 
owner  to  retain  in  the  colony  an  Indian  slave  purchased 
outside  the  colony  and  brought  to  New  York.5 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  xiii,  p.  537;  Brodhead,  op.  cit., 
first  edition,  ii,  p.  331. 

1  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  first  edition,  ii,  331 ;  Minutes  of  the  Common 
Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  i,  p.  80. 

'  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  486. 

4  Ibid.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  509. 

5  Ibid.,  first  edition,  ii,  p.  510. 


INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  [570 

The  numerous  petitions  to  the  governor  to  free  such  In- 
dians from  slavery,  and  his  attitude  in  the  matter,  show  the 
colonial  authorities  willing  to  stand  by  their  legislation  on 
the  subject.  On  December  28,  1700,  such  a  petition  was 
presented  by  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  New  York  City  to 
the  governor,  demanding  the  release  of  a  free  born  Indian 
woman,  a  native  of  Curagao,  then  held  as  a  slave  in  New 
York.1  On  July  15,  1703,  Jacobus  Kierstead,  a  mari- 
ner, of  New  York,  petitioned  the  governor  regarding 
an  Indian  brought  by  him  from  the  West  Indies  and 
sold  as  a  slave.2  Soon  after  Governor  Hunter's  ar- 
rival in  the  province  a  petition  was  handed  him  on  be- 
half of  a  number  of  free-born  Spanish  subjects  thus  held 
as  slaves.3  Among  the  victims  was  one  Stephen  Domingo, 
a  native  of  Carthagena,  who  had  been  held  as  a  slave  for 
eight  years.  Hunter  became  interested  in  the  matter  and 
wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  June  23,  1712,  that 
there  were  Spanish  Indians  in  New  York  who  had 
been  unjustly  kept  there  in  slavery  for  many  years. 
He  discovered  that  one  Husea  and  one  John,  both  held  as 
slaves  and  both  engaged  in  the  slave  conspiracy  of  1712, 
were  brought  to  New  York  as  prisoners  of  war  taken  from 
a  Spanish  vessel  by  a  privateer;  that  they  were  Spanish- 
American  Indians  and  subjects  of  the  king  of  Spain,  sold 
as  slaves  in  New  York  and  kept  in  bondage  six  or  seven 
years  "  by  reason  of  their  color  which  is  swarthy  ".  They 
declared  they  were  sold  among  many  others  of  the  same 
color  and  the  same  country.  These  two  Indians  Governor 
Hunter  reprieved  awaiting  the  queen's  pleasure.  The  In- 
dians who  petitioned,  though  he  "  secretly  pitied  their  con- 

1  O'Callaghan,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts,  e'c.,  pt.  ii,  p.  279. 
1  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  p.  314.    July  20,  1703,  Thomas  Newton,  marner,  made 
depositon  that  he  purchased  this  slave  at  Jamaica.    Ibid.,  ii,  p.  314. 
8  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  p.  342. 


57l]  THE  DECLINE  OF  INDIAN  SLAVERY  3x9 

dition  ",  he  was  unable  to  help  as  he  had  no  other  evidence^ 
than  their  words.1 

Rhode  Island  is  the  only  other  colony  which  took  direct 
action  concerning  Spanish  Indians,  but  even  Rhode  Island 
never  put  forth  any  general  legislation  on  the  matter.  Spec- 
ial action  was  taken  similar  to  that  in  New  York.  In  1746, 
the  general  assembly  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations  voted  to  send  back  to  the  West  Indies  certain 
free  subjects  of  the  king  of  Spain  who  had  been  captured 
and  sold  in  the  colony  as  slaves.2  These,  like  the  others 
mentioned,  were  captives  taken  in  the  recent  war  with 
Spain.3  Here,  as  in  New  York,  the  point  involved  was  one 
of  international  importance,  and  the  Indians  concerned 
were  considered,  not  as  Indians  but  as  the  objects  about 
which  the  point  was  raised. 

The  other  colonies  of  the  original  thirteen  which  finally 
took  legislative  action  to  end  the  institution  of  slavery  in 
general  did  not  accomplish  such  action  during  the  colonial 
period ;  so  the  conclusion  remains  that  with  the  exception 
of  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Rhode  Island  and  New  York, 
none  of  the  colonies  ever  declared  Indian  slavery  illegal. 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v,  pp.  342,  357.  The  Lords  of 
Trade  regarded  Hunter's  action  favorably,  and  on  August  27,  1712, 
recommended  to  her  majesty  'o  grant  a  pardon  to  the  Spanish  Indians 
then  in  prison  for  engaging  in  the  conspiracy. 

*  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
v,  P  176. 

9  CoflFn,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Newbury,  etc.,  p.  337,  contains  a 
receipt  for  the  sale  of  a  Spanish  Indian  boy  in  1718. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


TITLES  MENTIONED  IN  THE  TEXT 
•  Printed  Material 

Adams,  S.  W.  and  Stiles,  H.  R.,  The  History  of  Ancient  Wethersfield, 
Connecticut,  etc.  New  York,  1904. 

Albach,  J.  R.,  Annals  of  the  West.     Pittsburg,  1856. 

Aler,  Vernon,  History  of  Martinsburg  and  Berkeley  County,  West 
Virginia.  Hagerstown,  Md.,  1888. 

American  Antiquarian  Society  Transactions  and  Collections.  Wor- 
cester, Mass.,  1820 — 

Arber,  Edward,  The  First  three  English  books  on  America,  etc.  Bir- 
mingham, 1885. 

Archives  of  Maryland.  Edited  by  William  Hand  Browne.  Baltimore, 
1883— 

Baird,  Charles  W.,  History  of  Rye,  Westchester  County,  New  York, 
etc.  New  York,  1871. 

Baker,  Henry  A.,  History  of  Montville,  Connecticut,  etc.  Hartford, 
1896. 

Ballagh,  James  Curtis,  A  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia.  (In  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies.  Extra  volume  xxiv.)  Baltimore, 
1902. 

Ballagh,  James  Curtis,  White  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  Virginia. 
(In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xiii).  Baltimore,  1895. 

Bancroft,  'George,  Plistory  of  the  United  States  from  the  Discovery  of 
the  Continent.  6  vols.  Boston,  1878. 

Bancroft,  Hubert  H.,  History  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  1530-1888. 
San  Francisco,  1889. 

Bancroft,  Hubert  H.,  History  of  California.  7  vols.  San  Francisco, 
1884-1890. 

Bartram,  F.  S.,  Retrographs.     New  York,  1888. 

Bassett,  John  Spencer,  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  North  Carolina.  (In 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xiv.)  Baltimore,  1896. 

Baylies,  Francis,  An  Historical  Memoir  of  the  Colony  of  New  Ply- 
mouth from  .  .  .  1608  to  .  .  .  1692.  2  vols.  Boston,  1866. 

Beazley,  C.  Raymond,  John  and  Sebastian  Cabot.     New  York,  1898. 

Belknap,  Jeremy,  The  History  of  New  Hampshire.  Dover,  N.  H.,  1862. 
320  [572 


573]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  32 1 

Benezet,  Anthony,  Some  Observations  on  the  Situation,  Disposition 
and  Character  of  the  Indian  Natives  of  the  Continent.  Philadel- 
phia, 1784. 

Best,  George,  Frobisher's  First  Voyage.  (In  Voyages  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan Seamen  to  America,  e.c.  E.  J.  Payne's  edition.)  London, 
1880. 

Beverly,  Robert,  The  History  of  Virginia  in  Four  Parts.  Second 
ed.tion.  London,  1722. 

Bliss,  William  Root,  Side  Glimpses  from  the  Old  Meeting  House. 
Boston  and  New  York,  1894, 

Bodge,  George  Madison,  Soldiers  in  King  Philip's  War.  Leominster, 
Mass.,  1896. 

Bolles,  Ar.hur  S.,  Pennsylvania,  Province  and  State.  2  vols.  Phila- 
delphia, 1899. 

Bolion,  Robert,  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
County  of  Westchester,  from  .  .  .  1693  to  .  .  .  1853.  New  York, 

1855. 
Bossu,     M.,     Nouveaux     Voyages     dans     I'Amerique     Septentrionale. 

Amsterdam,  1777. 

Boston  Public  Library  Monthly  Bulletin.    Vol.  vii.     February,  1902. 
Bourne,  Edward  Gaylord,  The  Voyages  and  Explorations  of  Samuel 

de  Champlain,  1604-1616,  narrated  by  Himself.   2  vols.    New  York, 

1906. 
Bourne,  Edward  Gaylord,  Narratives  of  the  Career  of  Hernando  de 

Soto  in  the  Conquest  of  Florida.    2  vols.     New  York,  1904. 
Bradford,   William,  History   of  Plymouth  Plantations.     (In   Or'ginal 

Narratives  of  Early  American  History.)     Edited  by  J.   Franklin 

Jameson.    New  York,  1908. 

Brain,  Belle  M.,  The  Redemption  of  the  Red  Man,  etc.  New  York,  1904. 
Breese,  Sidney,  Ear.y  History  of  Illinois,  1673-1763,  etc.  Chicago,  1884. 
Brickell,  John,  The  Natural  History  of  North  Carolina,  etc.  Dublin, 

1737. 

Brodhead,  John  Romeyne,  Ed.,  Documents  Relative  to  the  Co'on'al  His- 
tory of  the  State  of  New  York.  15  vols.  Albany,  1858-1887. 

Brodhead,  John  Romeyne,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York.  2  vols. 
New  York.  First  edition,  1871.  Revised  edition,  1874. 

Brown,  W.,  The  History  of  Missions,  or,  of  the  Propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity among  the  Heathen  since  the  Reformation,  etc.  3  vols. 
Ed:nburg,  1854. 

Bruce,  Philip  Alexander,  Economic  History  of  Virginia  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century,  e  c.  New  York  and  London,  1907. 

Bruce,  Philip  Alexander,  Institutional  History  of  Virginia  in  the 
Seventeenth  Century,  etc.  2  vols.  New  York  and  London,  1910. 

Brymner,  Douglas  and  others,  Ed's.,  Reports  on  Canadian  Archives  and 
on  the  System  of  Keeping  Public  Records.  Oltawa,  1882— 


322  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [574 

Buckingham,  James  Silk,  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  New  Brunswick,  and 

the  other  British  Provinces.     London  and  Paris,  1843. 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Annual  Reports.     Washington,  D.  C. 
Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Publications.    Washington,  D.  C. 
Burge,   William,   Commentaries  on   Colonial  and  Foreign  Laws,   etc. 

4  vols.     London,  1838. 
Burke,  Edmund,  An  Account  of  the  European  Settlements  in  America. 

2  vols.     London,  1777. 
Burton,  C.  M.,  Cadillac's  Village,  or  Detroit  under  Cadillac.    Detroit, 

1896. 
Calendar   of   State   Papers   and    other   Manuscripts    of    Virginia  .  .  . 

1652-1869.     ii  vols.     Richmond,  1875-1893. 
Carroll,  B.  R.,  Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina,  etc.    2  vols. 

New  York,  1836. 
Carver,  J.,  Travels  through  the  Interior  Parts  of  North  America  in 

the  Years,  1766,  1767,  and  1768.     London,  1778. 
Case,  J.  Wickam,  Southold  Town  Records.    2  vols.     Southold,  N.  Y., 

1882. 
Catesby,    Mark,    The   Natural  History   of   Carolina,   Florida   and   the 

Bahama  Islands,  etc.    2  vols.     London,  1743. 
Caulkins,  Francis  Mainwaring,  History  of  New  London,  Connecticut. 

New  London,  1852. 
Centennial    (The}    of   Incorporation    of    Charleston,    South    Carolina. 

Charleston,  1884. 
Channing,   Edward,   Narragansett  Planters;   a  study   of  causes.     (In 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  iv.)     Baltimore,  1886. 
Chappell,  Philip,  A  History  of  the.  Missouri  River,  etc.     Kansas  City, 

1905. 

Charlevoix,  Francois  Xavier  de,  History  and  General  Description  of 
New  France.  Translated  with  Notes  by  John  Gilmary  Shea.  6 
vols.  New  York,  1866. 

Chase,  George  Wingate,  History  of  Haverhill,  Massachusetts.  Haver- 
hill,  1861. 

Chitwood,  Oliver  Perry,  Justice  in  Colonial  Virginia.     (In  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  Studies,  vol.  xxiii.)     Baltimore,  1905. 
Church,    Benjamin,    The   History   of  King   Philips    War.     Edited   by 

Henry   Martyn    Dexter.    2   vols.     Boson,    1865. 
Cobb,  Thomas   R.,  Historical  Sketches  of  Slavery  from   the  earliest 

periods.     Philadelphia,  1858. 
Coffin,  Joshua,  A   Sketch  of  the  History  of  Newbury,  Newburyport 

and  West  Newbury  from  1635  to  1845.     Boston,  1845. 
Collections  of  the  Maine  Historical  Soc'ety.     Portland,  1831— 
Colonial    Records    of    Connect' cut.     Edited    by    Charles    J.    Hoadly. 
15  vols.     Hartford,  1850-1890. 


575]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  323 

Colonial  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia.    Atlanta,  1904 — 

Coman,  Katharine,  Economic  Beginnings  of  the  Far  West,  etc.  2  vols. 
New  York,  1912. 

Cooley,  Henry  Schofield,  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  (In 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xiv.)  Baltimore,  1896. 

Corey,  Deloraine  Pendre,  The  History  of  Maiden,  Massachusetts, 
1633-1785.  Maiden,  1859. 

Courtenay,  William  A.,  Ed.,  The  Genesis  of  South  Carolina,  1562- 
1670,  etc.  Columbia,  1907. 

Cramoisy,  Le  Sieur,  Journal  de  la  Guerre  du  Micissippi  contre  les 
Chicachas.  New  York,  1859. 

Currier,  John  C,  History  of  Newbury,  Massachusetts,  1635-1902. 
Boston,  1902. 

Dalcho,  Frederick,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  South  Carolina.  Charleston,  1820. 

Daniels,  George  F.,  History  of  the  Town  of  Oxford,  Massachusetts. 
Oxford,  1892. 

De  Brumath,  A.  Leblond,  Bishop  Laval.     Toronto,  1906. 

Denton,  Daniel,  A  Brief  Description  of  New  York  formerly  called 
New  Netherlands,  etc.  New  York,  1845. 

Diffenderffer,  Frank  R ,  The  German  Immigration  into  Pennsylvania 
through  the  Port  of  Phi.adelphia,  1700  to  1775.  2  vols.  Lancaster, 
1900. 

Dillon,  John  B.,  Oddities  in  Colonial  Legislation  in  America.  Indian- 
apolis, 1879. 

Dix,  Morgan,  A  History  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City 
of  New  York.  4  vols.  New  York,  1898-1906. 

Documentary  History  of  the  State  of  Maine.  Edited  by  J.  G  Kohl, 
William  Willis  and  others.  (In  Collections  of  the  Maine  His- 
torical Society).  Series  2.  5  vols.  Portland,  1869. 

Dorr,  Henry  C.,  The  Narragansetts.  (In  Rhode  Island  Historical 
Society  Collections,  vol.  vii  )  Providence,  1885. 

Douglass,  James,  Old  France  in  the  New  World.  Quebec  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century.  Cleveland  and  London,  1905. 

Douglass,  William,  A  Summary,  Historical  and  Political  of  the  first 
Plotting,  Progressive  Improvements  and  Present  State  of  the 
British  Sett  ements  in  North  America.  2  vols.  Boston,  1755. 

Doyle,  J.  A.,  English  Colonies  in  America.  5  vols.  New  York, 
1889-1907. 

Drake,  Samuel  Gardner,  The  Book  of  the  Indians,  etc.  Ninth  ed'tion. 
Boston,  1845. 

Drake,  Samuel  Gardner,  The  Old  Indian  Chronicle,  etc.     Boston,  1867. 

Dubroca,  Louis,  L'ltincraire  des  Franqais  dans  la  Louisiane.  Paris, 
1802. 


324 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Dunlap,  William,  History  of  the  New  Netherlands,  Province  of  New 

York  and  State   of  New   York   to   the  Adoption   of  the  Federal 

Constitution.    2  vols.     New  York,   1839-1840. 
Dunn,  J.  P.,  Indiana.     Boston  and  New  York,  1888. 
Du  Pratz,  Le  Page,  The  History  of  Louisiana,  etc.     London,  1774. 
Durfee,  Thomas,  Gleanings  from  the  Judicial  History  of  Rhode  Island. 

(In  Rhode  Island  Historical  Tracts,  No.  18.)     Providence,  1883. 
Earle,   Alice   Morse,    Customs   and   Fashions  in   Old   New   England. 

New  York,  1896. 
Early  English  and  French  Voyages.     (In  Original  Narratives  of  Early 

American  History.)     Edited  by  Henry   S.   Burrage.     New   York, 

1906. 
Early  Records  of  the  Town  of  Portsmouth.    Edited  by  the  Librarian 

of  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society.     Providence,  1901. 
Early  Records  of  the   Town   of  Providence.     20  vols.     Providence, 

1892-1909. 
Ecclesiastical  Records  of  the  State  of  New  York.    3  vols.    Albany, 

1901-1902. 

Ellis,  Charles  Mayo,  The  History  of  Roxbury  Town.    Boston,  1847. 
Ellis,   George   W.,   and    Morris,   John   E.,   King   Philip's   War.    New 

York,  1906. 

Ewell,  John  Lewis,  The  Story  of  Byfield.    Boston,  1904. 
Fairbanks,  George  R.,  History  of  Florida  from  .  .  .  1512  to  .  .  .  1842. 

Philadelphia  and  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  1871. 
Fairbanks,   George   R.,    The  History  and  Antiquities   of  the   City   of 

St.  Augustine,  Florida,  e'c.     New  York,  1858. 
Farmer,  Silas,  History  of  Detroit  and  Michigan,  etc.    2  vols.     Detroit, 

1890. 
Felt,  Joseph  B.,  History  of  Ipswick,  Essex  and  Hamilton,   (Massa- 

chusetts).    Cambridge,    1834.     Statistics   of   Towns   in   Massachu- 

setts.     (In   American   Statistical   Association    Collections,    vol.    i, 

pt.   i.)     Boston,   1843.     Statistics  of  Population  in  Massachusetts. 

(In  American   Statistical   Association   Collections,   vol.   i,   pt.   2.) 

Boston,   1843.     Statistics  of   Taxation  in  Massachusetts  including 

Valuation  and  Population.     (In  American  Statistical  Association 

Collections,    vol.    i,    pt.    3.)      Boston,    1843.     Annals    of    Salem. 

Second  edition.    2  vols.     Salem,  1845. 
Ferland,  J.  B.  A.,  Cours  d'Histoire  du  Canada.    Seconde  Partie,  1663- 

1759-    Quebec,  1865. 
Ferris,    Benjamin,    A    History    of    the    Original    Settlements    on    the 

De'aware,  etc.     Wilmington,  1846. 
Field,  R.  S.,  The  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey  with  Sketches  of 

the  Bench  and  Bar.    (In  New  Jersey  Historical  Society  Collections, 

vol.  iii.)     New  York,  1849. 


577]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  325 

Fisher,  E.  T.,  Translation  of  a  Report  of  a  French  Protestant  Re- 
fugee in  Boston,  1687.  Brooklyn,  1868. 

Foote,  William  Henry,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  Historical  and  Biogra- 
phical. First  series.  Philadelphia,  1850. 

Force,  Peter,  Tracts  and  other  Papers,  etc.  4  vols.  Washington, 
1836-1846. 

Fortier,  Alcee,  A  History  of  Louisiana.    4  vols.     New  York,  1904. 

Fortier,  Alcee,  Old  Papers  of  Colonial  Times.  (In  Publications  of  the 
Louisiana  Historical  Society,  vol.  i,  pt.  2,  1895.) 

Freeman,  Frederick,  Civilisation  and  Barbarism,  illustrated  by  especial 
reference  to  Metacomet  and  the  extinction  of  his  race.  Cambridge, 
1878. 

Freeman,  Frederick,  The  History  of  Cape  Cod.    2  vols.     Boston,  1860. 

French,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Historical  Collections  of  Louisiana. 
Various  series.  New  York,  1846-1875. 

Futhey,  J.  S.,  and  Cope,  Gilbert,  History  of  Chester  County,  Penn- 
sylvania, etc.  Philadelphia,  1881. 

Gaffarel,  Paul,  Histoire  de  la  decouverte  de  I'Amerique,  depuis  les 
origines  jusqu'a  la  mort  de  Christophe  Colomb.  2  vols.  Paris, 
1892. 

Gayarre";  Charles,  History  of  Louisiana.  4  vols.  New  Orleans,  1885. 
Fourth  edition.  New  Orleans,  1903. 

Glenn,  James,  A  Description  of  South  Carolina,  etc.     London,  1761. 

Godwyn,  Morgan,  The  Negros  and  Indian's  Advocate,  sueing  for 
their  Admission  into  the  Church;  or  a  persuasive  to  the  Instruct- 
ing and  Baptizing  of  the  Negroes  and  Indians  in  our  Plantations. 
Shewing  that  as  the  Compliance  therewith  can  prejudice  no  Man's 
just  Interest;  so  the  Wilful  neglecting  and  opposing  of  it,  is  no 
less  than  a  manifest  Apostacy  from  the  Christian  Faith.  To 
which  is  added,  A  brief  Account  of  Religion  in  Virginia.  London, 
1680. 

Go6dwin,  John  A.,  The  Pilgrim  Republic.     Boston,  1888. 

Gookin,  Daniel,  History  of  the  Christian  Indians.  (In  American  Anti- 
quarian Society  Collections,  vol.  ii,  1836  ) 

Gorges,  Sir  Ferdinand,  A  Brief  Narration,  etc.  London,  1658.  (In 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections.  Series  3.  Vol.  vi.) 

Grahame,  James,  The  History  of  the  United  States  of  North  America 
from  the  Plantation  of  the  Colonies,  etc.  4  vols.  Boston,  1845. 

Green,  Mason  A.,  Springfield,  1636-1886,  History  of  Town  and  City. 
Springfield,  1888 

Guenin,  Eugene,  La  Louisiane.     Paris,  1904. 

Hakluyt,  Richard,  A  Selection  of  Curious,  rare  and  early  Voyages, 
and  Histories  of  Interesting  Discoveries,  etc.  London,  1812. 

Hakluyt,  Richard,  The  Principal  Navigations,  Voiages,  Traffiques  and 
Discoveries  of  the  English  Nation,  etc,  3  vols.  in  two.  London, 
1600. 


326  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Hakluyt  Society  Publications.    London,   1847 — 

Halkett,    John,    Historical    Notes    respecting    the    Indians    of    North 

America,  etc.     London,  1825. 

Hamilton,    James    Cleland,    The    Panis,    An    Historical    Outline    of\ 
Canadian  Slavery  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.     (In  Proceedings  of  the 

Canadian  Institute.    Vol.  i.     Part  I.     February,  1897.) 
Hamilton,  James  Cleland,  Slavery  in  Canada.     (In  Transactions  of  the 

Canadian  Institute  for  the  Year  1890.)     Toronto,  1891. 
Hamilton,  Peter  J.,  Colonial  Mobile,  An  Historical  Study,  etc.     New 

York,  1898. 
Harrisse,  Henry,  Dtcouverte  et  Evolution  Cartographique  de   Terre- 

Neuve  et  des  Pays  Circonvoisins,  etc.     London,  1900. 
Hawkins,  Ernest,  Historical  Notices  of  the  Missions  of  the  Church 

of  England  in  the  North  American  Colonies  of  North  America 

London,  1845. 

Hawks,   Francis   L.,   History   of  North   Carolina  with   Map   and  Il- 
lustrations.   Second  edition.    2  vols.    Fayetteville,  N.  C.,  1857. 
Hazard,  Samuel,  Annals  of  Pennsylvania  from  the  Discovery  of  the 

Delaware,  1609-1682.     Philadelphia,  1850. 
Hazard,   Ebenezer,  Historical  Collections,   etc.    2  vols.     Philadelphia, 

1792-1794. 
Hennepin,  Louis,  A   New  Discovery  of  a  vast  Country  in  America. 

Edited  by  Reuben  Gold  Thwaites.    2  vols.    Chicago,  1903. 
Hewat,  Alexander,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 

of  the  Colonies  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.    2  vols.    London, 

1779. 
Hildreth,  Richard,  The  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  from 

the  Discovery  of  the  Continent,  etc.     3  vols.     New  York,  1849. 
Hinsdale,  B.  A.,  The  Old  Northwest,  etc.     Revised  edition,  1899. 
Historical  Collections  of  the  Essex  Institute.     Salem,  1859 — 
Historical  Documents  from   the   Old  Dominion.     (Printed   from   the 

papers    of    William    Byrd,    of    Westover,    in    Virginia,    Esquire.) 

2  vols.     Richmond,  Va.,  1866. 
Historical  Magazine,  and  Notes  and  Queries  concerning  the  Antiquities, 

History  and  Biography  of  America.    23  vols.     Boston,  1857-1875. 
Hoadly,  Charles  Jeremiah,  Records  of  the  Colony  and  Plantation  of 

New  Haven,  from  1638  to  1649.    Hartford,  1857.    Records  of  the 

Colony   or  Jurisdiction  of  New  Haven  from  May,   1653,   to   the 

Union.     Together  with  the  New  Haven  Code  of  1656.     Hartford, 

1858. 
Hodge,   Frederick  Webb,   Handbook   of  American   Indians  North   of 

Mexico.     (Bureau  of  American  Ethnology  Bulletin  jo.)     2  vols. 

Washington,  1910. 
Holmes,    Abiel,   American   Annals,    etc.      2   vols.      Cambridge,    Mass., 

1808. 


579]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  327 

Houck,  Louis,  A  History  of  Missouri  from  the  Earliest  Explorations, 

etc.    3  vols.    Chicago,  1908. 

Hough,  Franklin  B.,  A  Narrative  of  the  Causes  which  led  to  Philip's 
Indian  War  of  1675  and  1676,  by  John  Easton  of  Rhode  Island, 
etc.     Albany,  1858. 
Hough,  Franklin  B.,  Papers  relating  to  the  island  of  Nantucket,  etc. 

Albany,  1856. 

Howland,  Edward,  Annals  of  North  America,  etc.     Hartford,  1877. 
Hubbard,  William,  A  Narrative  of  the  Indian  Wars  in  New  England 

from  .  .  .  1607  to  .  .  .  1677,  etc.     Brattleborough,   1814. 
Humphreys,  David,  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Incorporated  So- 
ciety for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  contain- 
ing their  Foundation,  Proceedings,  and  the  Success  of  their  Mis- 
sionaries in  the  British  Colonies,  to  the  Year  1728.    London,  1730. 
Hurd,  John  Codman,  The  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United 

States.    2  vols.     Boston  and  New  York,  1862. 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  The  History  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  from  .  .  .  1628  until  .  .  .  1691.  Second  edition.  3  vols. 
London,  1765. 

Illinois  State  Historical  Library  Collections,  Publications  and  Trans- 
actions.    Springfield,  111.,  1903 — 
Irving,  Theodore,  The  Conquest  of  Florida  under  Hernando  de  Soto. 

2  vols.     London,  1835. 
James,  Alton  J.,  English  Institutions  and  the  American  Indian.     (In 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xii.)  Baltimore,  1894. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  Notes  on  the  State  of  Virginia.  London,  1787. 
Johnson,  W.  D.,  Slavery  in  Rhode  Island:  1755-1776.  (In  Rhode 

Island  Historical  Society  Publications.     New  series,  ii.) 
Jones,  Hugh,  The  Present  State  of  Virginia,  etc.    London,  1724. 
Josselyn,  John,  An  Account  of  Two   Voyages  to  New  England,  etc. 
London,   1675.     (In  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections. 
Series  5.    Vol.  iii.) 

Journal  of  the  American  Irish  Historical  Society.     Boston  1898 — 
Joutel,  Henri,  "4  Journal  of  the  Last  Voyage  Perform'd  by  Monsr.  de 

laSale,  etc.     Chicago,  1896. 

Judd,  Sylvester,  History  of  Hadley,  including  the  Early  History  of 
Hatfield,  South  Hadley,  Amherst  and  Granby,  Massachusetts. 
Northampton,  1863. 

Kaskaskia  Records,  1778-1790.     (In  Illinois  State  Historical  Library 
Collections,     vol.     v.)      Edited     by     Charles     Walworth     Alvord. 
Springfield,  111.,  1909. 
Kennet,  White,  An  Account  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 

in  Foreign  Parts,  etc.     London,  1706. 

Kings  ford,  William,  The  History  of  Canada.  10  vols.  Toronto  and 
London,  1888-1898. 


328  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [5gO 

La    Harpe,    Benard    de,    Journal    Historique    de    l'£tab!issement    des 

Franqais  a  la  Louisiane.     New  Orleans  and  Paris,  1831. 
Laudun,  Lavalette  de,  Journal  d'un  Voyage  a  la  Louisiane  fait  en  1720. 

Par  M ,  Capitaine  de  Vaisseau  du  Roi.     Paris,  1768. 

Laverdiere,  C.  Honore,  Oeuvres  de  Cham  plain  public  es  sous  le  patron- 
age de  I'universite  Laval.     Seconde  edition.    6  vols.     Quebec,  1870. 
Law,  John,  The  General  History  of  Vincennes,  etc.     Vincennes,  1858. 
Law  Reports:   Courts  of  Connecticut   (ed.  by  Ephraim  Kirby,  Litch- 
field,    1789)  ;    Massachusetts    (ed.   by   Luther   S.   Gushing,    Boston, 
1859)  ;   New  Jersey   (ed.  by  George  B.   Halstead,   Elizabeth  own, 
1849)  ;   Pennsylvania    (ed.  by  A.  J.  Dallas,  2d.  edition,   Ph.ladel- 
phia,  1806-)  ;  South  Carolina  (ed.  by  J.  S    G.  Richardson,  Colum- 
bia,   1845- ;    ed.    by    R.    H.    Spears,    Charleston,    1860)  ;    Virginia 
(ed.  by  Bushrod  Washington,  Richmond,   1798;  ed.  by  Benjamin 
W.  Leigh,  Richmond,  1831 ;  ed.  by  Will  am  W.  Hening  and  Wil- 
liam Munford,  2d  edition,  Flatbush,  N.  Y.,  1892). 
Laws — 

Connecticut : 
Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  English  Colony  of  Connecticut  in 

New  England  in  America.     New  London,  1750. 
Acts  and  Laws,  Passed  by  the  General  Court  or  Assembly  of  His 
Majesty's   English   Colony    of   Connecticut,    etc.     New   London, 
1769. 
Acts  and  Laws  of  the  State   of  Connecticut,  in  America.     New 

London,  1784. 
Maryland : 

Bacon,  Thomas,  Ed.,  Laws  of  Maryland,  etc.     Annapolis,  1765. 
Maxcy,  Virgil,  Ed ,   The  Laws  of  Maryland,  etc.     3  vols.     Balti- 
more, 1811. 
Massachusetts: 

Co'onial    Laws    of   Massachusetts.     Edition    of    1672.     Reprinted. 

Boston,  1887. 
The  Acts  and  Resolves,  public  and  private,  of  the-  Province   of 

the  Massachusetts  Bay,  etc.     17  vols.     Boston,  1869-1910. 
New  Hampshire : 

Acts  and  Laws  passed  by  the  General  Court  or  Assembly  of  His 
Majesty's  Province  of  New  Hampshire  in  New  England.    Boston, 
1726. 
Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Province  of  New  Hampshire  in 

New   England  .  .  .     Portsmouth,    1771. 
Laws  of  New  Hampshire  .  .  .     Edited  by  Albert  Stillman  Batchel- 

lor.     Manchester,  N.  H.,  1904. 
New  Jersey : 

Allinson,  Samuel,  Ed.,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pro- 
vince of  New  Jersey  from  .  .  .  170-?  to  .  .  .  1776.  Burlington, 
N.  J.,  1776. 


581]  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Elmer,  Lucius  Quintius  Cincinnatus,  Digest  of  the  Laws  of  New 

Jersey,  etc.     Bridgeton,  1838. 
Nevill,  Samuel,  Ed.,  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province 

of  New  Jersey.    2  vols.     Philadelphia,  1752. 
New  York: 
Laws  of  New  York  from  the  Year  1691,  to  1751,  inclusive,  etc. 

New  York,  1752. 

Colonial  Laws  of  New  York.    5  vols.     Albany,  1894. 
North  Carolina: 

Martin,    Frangois-Xavier,    Ed.,    The   Public  Acts   of   the   General 
Assembly   of  North   Carolina,   1715-1803.     (A    reprint    and    re- 
vision of  the  edition  of  James  Irewell  )     2  vols.     Newbern,  1804. 
Pennsylvania : 
The  Laws   of   the  Province   of  Pennsylvania,   etc.     Philadelphia, 

1714- 
The  Statutes  at  Large   of  Pennsylvania.     10  vols.     Philadelphia, 

1896. 

Rhode  Island: 

Laws  and  Acts  made  from  the  First  Settlement  of  Her  Majesties 
Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  said  Colony,  etc.     Providence,  1705. 
December,  1772.    At  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Governor  and 
Company  of  the  English  Colony  of  Rhode  Is' and,  and  of  Pro- 
vidence Plantations,  in  New  England,  etc.     Newport,  1772. 
South  Carolina: 

Brevard,  Joseph,  Digest  of  the  Public  Statute  Law  of  South  Caro- 
lina. 3  vols.  Charleston,  1814. 

Grimke,  Faucheraud,  The  Public  Laws  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  from  its  first  Establishment  as  a  British  Province  down 
to  the  Year  1790,  etc.  Philadelphia,  1790. 

The  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina;  edited  under  authority 
of  the  Legislature,  by  Thomas  Cooper  and  David  J.   McCord. 
13  vols.     Columbia,  S.  C,  1836-1875. 
Trott,  N'cholas,  Laws  of  the  Province  of  South  Carolina.    2  vols. 

Charleston,  1736. 
Virginia : 

Hening,  William  Waller,  The  Statutes  at  Large;  being  a  collection 
of  all  the  Laws  of  Virginia  from  the  first  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature in  the  year  1619.     13  vols.     New  York,  1823. 
Lawson,  John,  A  New  Voyage  to  Carolina,  etc.     London,  1709. 
Lawson,  John,  The  History  of  Carolina,  etc.     Raleigh,  1860. 
Learning,  Aaron,  and  Spicer,  Jacob,  The  Grants,  Concessions  and  Ori- 
ginal Constitutions  of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey,  etc.     Second 
series.     Philadelphia,   1881. 

Lechford,    Thomas,   Note-Book    kept   in   Boston,  Massachusetts   Bay, 
from  1638  to  1641.     Cambridge,  Mass.,  1885. 


330  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Le  Clercq,  Chretien,  First  Establishment  of  the  Faith  in  New  France; 

translated  by  J.  G.  Shea.    2  vols.     New  York,  1881. 
Lee,  Francis  Bazley,  Nezv  Jersey  as  a  Colony  and  as  a  State,  etc.     5 

vols.    New  York,  1902. 
Lescarbot,  Marc,  Histoire  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  suivie  des  Muses  de 

la  Nouvelle-France.     Nouvelle  edition.    3  vols.     Paris,  1866. 
Livermore,  S.  T.,  A  History  of  Block  Island  from  its  Discovery  in 

1714  to  the  Present  Time,  1876.     Hartford,  Conn.,  1877. 
Logan,  John  H.,  A  History  of  the  Upper  Country  of  South  Carolina. 

Charleston  and  Columbia,  1859. 
Love,  W.  De  Loss,  Samson  Occom  and  the  Christian  Indians  of  New 

England.     Boston  and  Chicago,   1899. 
Lowery,    Woodbury,    The    Spanish    Settlements    within    the    Present 

Limits  of  the  United  States,  1513-1561.     New  York  and  London, 

1901. 
Lowery,    Woodbury,    The    Spanish    Settlements    within    the    Present 

Limits  of  the  United  States.    Florida,  1562-1574.     New  York  and 

London,  1905. 
Lowry,  R,  and  McCardle,  W.  H.,  A  History  of  Mississippi  from  the 

Discovery  of  the  Great  River  by  Hernando  de  Soto,  etc.     Second 

edition.    Jackson,  Miss.,  1891. 
Lyford,  James  O.,  Ed.,  History  of  Concord,  New  Hampshire,  from  the 

Original   Grant  .  .  .  to    the   Opening    of   the    Twentieth    Century. 

2  vols.    Concord,  1903. 

McClintock,  John  W.,  History  of  New  Hampshire.    Boston,  1889. 
McCormac,  Eugene  I.,  White  Servitude  in  Maryland,  1634-1820.     (In 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xxii.)     Baltimore,  1904. 
McCrady,   Edward,   The  History  of  South   Carolina  under  the  Pro- 
prietary Government,  1670-1719.     New  York,   1897. 
McCrady,  Edward,  Slavery  in  the  Province  of  South  Carolina,  1670- 

1770.      (In    Annual    Report    of    the     American     Historical    As- 
sociation for  1805.) 
Magazine  of  American  History  with  Notes  and  Queries.     New  York, 

Chicago,  1877 — 
Marbois,  Barbe,  The  History  of  Louisiana,  etc.     Translated  by  W.  B. 

Lawrence.     Philadelphia,   1830. 
Margry,    Pierre,    Decouvertes    et    £tablissements    des    Franc.ais    dans 

I' Quest   et   dans   le    Sud   de    I'Amerique    Septentrionale.     6    vols. 

Paris,  1879-1888. 
Marshall,  Orsamus  H.,  The  Historical  Writings  of  the  late  Orsamus 

H.   Marshall   relating    to    the   Early   History   of   the    West,   with 

an  Introduction  by  William  L.  Stone.     Albany,   1887.     (In  Mun- 

sell's  Historical  Series,  vol.  xv.) 
Martin,  Francois  Xavier,  The  History  of  Louisiana  from  the  Earliest 

Period.    2  vols.     New  Orleans,  1827-1829. 


583]  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Martin,  John  Hill,  Chester  and  its  Vicinity,  Delaware  County  in 
Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia,  1877. 

Mason,  John,  A  Brief  History  of  the  Pequot  War,  etc.  (In  Orr's 
History  of  the  Pequot  War.} 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections.     Boston,  1806 — 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings.     Boston,  1879 — 

Mather,  Cotton,  Diary,  1681-1708.  (In  Massachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety Collections.  Series  7.  Vols.  vii  and  viii.) 

Mather,  Cotton,  Magnolia  Christi  Americana,  etc.  First  American 
edition.  2  vols.  Hartford,  1820. 

Mather,  Increase,  A  Brief  History  of  the  War  with  the  Indians  in 
New  England,  etc.  Drake's  edition.  Albany,  1862. 

Ma. her,  Increase,  A  Relation  of  the  Troubles  which  have  happened 
in  New  England  by  reason  of  the  Indians  there,  etc.  Boston,  1677. 
Reprinted  in  Drake's  Early  History  of  New  England,  etc.  Boston, 
1864. 

Mayhew,  Experience,  Indian  Converts  or  some  Account  of  the  Lives 
and  Dying  Speeches  of  a  Considerable  Number  of  the  Christian- 
ized Indians  of  Martha's  Vineyard  in  New  England.  London,  1727. 

Meade,  Bishop  W.,  Old  Churches,  Ministers  and  Families  of  Virginia. 
2  vols.  Philadelphia,  1878. 

Medford  Historical  Register.     Medford,  Mass.,  1898 — 

Memoir es  des  Commissaires  du  Roi  et  de  Ceux  de  Sa.  Majestc 
Brittanique  sur  les  possessions  &  les  droits  respectifs  des  deux 
Couronnes  en  Amerique.  3  vols.  Paris,  1755-1757. 

Memoires  et  Documents  Relatifs  a  I'histoire  du  Canada.  Published  by 
La  Societe  Historique  de  Montreal.  1859. 

Memoirs  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  12  vols.  Phila- 
delphia, 1864-1876. 

Messages  from  the  Governors  [of  the  State  of  New  York]  comprising 
executive  communications  to  the  Legislature  and  other  Papers 
relating  to  Legislation,  etc.  Edited  by  Charles  Z.  Lincoln.  10 
vols.  Albany,  1909. 

Michener,  Ezra,  A  Retrospect  of  Early  Quakerism,  being  Extracts 
from  the  Records  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  and  the  Meetings 
Composing  it.  To  such  is  prefixed  an  Account  of  their  First  Es- 
tablishment. Philadelphia,  1860. 

Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  Collections.    Lansing,  1877 — 

Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York.  8  vols. 
New  York,  1905. 

Mississippi  Historical  Society  Publications.    Oxford,  Miss.,  1898 — 

Monette,  John  W.,  History  of  the  Discovery  and  Settlement  of  the 
Valley  of  the  Mississippi  .  .  .  until  the  year  1846.  2  vols.  New 
York,  1848. 

Moore,   Frank,  Materials  for  History  printed  from   Original  Manu- 


332  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [-§4 

scripts   with   Notes   and   Illustrations.    First    series.     New    York, 

1861. 
Moore,  George  H  ,  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts. 

New  York,   1866. 
Morgan,   Edwin  Vernon,  Slavery  in  New   York.     (In  Historic  New 

York,  vol.  ii.)     New  York  and  London,  1899. 
Morton,  Nathaniel,  New  England's  Memorial,  etc.      Plymouth,  Mass., 

1826. 
Morton,    Thomas,    The    New   English    Canaan.     (In    Prince    Society 

Publications,  vol.  ix.)     Boston,  1883. 

Munsell,  J.,  The  Annals  of  Albany.     10  vols.     Albany,  1850-1859. 
Murphy,  Henry  C,  The  Voyage  of  Verazzano,  e  c.     New  York,  1875. 
Narrative  of  Alvar  Nunez  Cabeza  de  Vaca.     (In  Original  Narratives 

of  Early  American  History.)     New  York,  1907. 
Narratives  of  the  Expedition  of  Coronado,  by  Pedro  Castaneda.     (In 

Original   Narratives    of   Early   American   History.}     New    York, 

1907. 

Neill,  Edward  D.,  History  of  Minnesota.     Philadelphia,  1858. 
Neill,    Edward    D.,    History    of    the    Virginia    Company    of   London. 

Albany,  1869. 

New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register.     Boston,  1859. 
New  England's  First  Fruits;  in  respect,  ist  of  the  Indians;  2nd  of  the 

Colledge  at  Cambridge,  etc.     London,  1643.     New  York,  1865. 
New  Hampshire  Historical  Society  Collections.     Concord,   1824 — 
New  Jersey  Archives.     Newark  and  other  ci  ies,  1880 — 
New  Jersey  Historical  Society  Proceedings.     Newark,  1847 — 
Newspapers : 

The  American  Weekly  Mercury. 

The  Boston  Gazette  or  Week  y  Journal. 

The  Boston  Weekly  Mercury. 

The  Boston  Weekly  News  Letter. 

The  Boston  Week'y  Post  Boy. 

The  New  England  C  our  ant. 

The  New  England  Weekly  Journal. 

The  New   York  Gazette. 

The  New  York  Weekly  Mercury. 

The  Pennsylvania  Gazette. 

New  York  Historical  Society  Collections.    New  York,  1811— 
North  Carolina  Co  onial  Records.     Raleigh,  1886 — 
North  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register.     3  vols.     Eden- 
ton,  N   C.,  1900-1903. 
Northrup,  A.  Judd,  Slavery  in  New  York,  A  Historical  Sketch.     (In 

New   York  State  Library  Bulletin.     History,   No.  4,   May,   1900.) 

Albany,  1900. 
O'Callaghan,  Edmund  Bailey,  The  Documentary  History  of  the  State 

of  New  York.    4  vols.     Albany,  1849-1851. 


585]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  333 

O'Callaghan,  Edmund  Bailey,  Calendar  of  Historical  Manuscripts  in 
the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Albany,  New  York,  Pt.  ii, 
English.  Albany,  1866. 

O'Callaghan,  Edmund  Bailey,  History  of  New  Netherland;  or  New 
York  under  the  Dutch.  2  vols.  New  York,  1846-1848. 

O'Gorman,  Thomas,  A  History  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the 
United  States.  New  York,  1895. 

Oldmixon,  J.,  The  British  Empire  in  America,  etc.  2  vols.  London, 
1708. 

O'Neall,  John  Belton,  The  Negro  Law  of  South  Carolina  collected 
and  digested  .  .  .  Columbia,  1848. 

Orcutt,  Samuel,  The  History  of  the  Old  Town  of  Derby,  Connecticut. 
Springfield,  Massachusetts,  1880. 

Orr,  Charles,  History  of  the  Pequot  War,  e'c.     Cleveland,  1897. 

Palfrey,  John  Gorman,  History  of  New  England.  5  vols.  Boston, 
1858-1890.  History  of  New  England  during  the  Stuart  Dynasty. 
3  vols.  Boston,  1858-1864.  A  Compendious  History  of  New 
England,  etc.  4  vols.  Boston  and  New  York,  1883. 

Park  man  Club  Papers,  Milwaukee,  1896. 

Parkman,  Francis,  The  Discovery  of  the  Great  West.  Boston,  1874, 
The  Old  Regime  in  Canada.  Boston,  1874.  The  Conspiracy  of 
Pontiac.  Boston,  1874.  A  Half-Century  of  Conflict.  2  vols. 
Boston,  1892.  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World.  Boston, 
1898. 

Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records.     17  vols.     Philadelphia,  1852-1860. 

Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.     Philadelphia,  1877 — 

Perry,  William  Stevens,  Historical  Collections  relating  to  the  Ameri- 
can Co'onial  Church.  5  vols.  Hartford,  1870-1878. 

Perry,  William  Stevens,  The  History  of  the  American  Episcopal 
Church,  1587-1883.  2  vols.  Boston,  1885 

Pickett,  Albert  James,  History  of  Alabama,  and  incidentally  of  Georgia 
and  Mississippi.  Birmingham,  1900. 

Piltman,  Captain  Philip,  The  Present  State  of  the  European  Settle- 
ments on  the  Mississippi,  etc.  Edited  by  Frank  H.  Hodder. 
Cleveland,  1906. 

Plymouth  Colony  Records.  Edited  by  N.  B.  Shurtleff.  12  vols. 
Boston,  1855-1861. 

Poore,  Benjamin  Perley,  The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial 
Charters  and  other  organic  laws  of  the  United  States.  2  vols. 
Washington,  1877. 

Porter,  William  S.,  Historical  Notices  of  Connecticut,  published  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Connecticut  Historical  Society.  Hartford, 
1842.  K 

Present  State  of  the  Country  and  Inhabitants,  European  and  Indian 
of  Louisiana  on  the  North  Continent  of  America.  By  an  officer 
at  New  Orleans  to  his  friends  at  Paris.  London,  1744. 


334  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Prince,   Thomas,  A    Chronological  History   of  New  England   in   the 

Forms  of  Annals.    5  vols.  in  one.    Edinburg,  1887. 
Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Indian  Affairs,  appointed  by  Law 

for   the   extinguishment   of   Indian    titles   in    the    State    of   New 

York,  etc.    2  vols.     Albany,  1861. 
Professional  and  Industrial  History  of  Suffolk  County,  Massachusetts. 

3  vols.     Boston,  1894. 

Publications  of  the  Prince  Society.     Boston,  1865 — 
Purchas,    Samuel,   Hakluytus  Posthumus   or  Purchas  His  Pilgrimes, 

etc.    20  vols.     Glasgow  and  New  York,   1905. 
Ramage,  B.  J.,  Local  Government  and  free  schools  in  South  Carolina. 

(In  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  i.) Baltimore,  1883. 
Rambaut,    Thomas   D.,   A    Sketch   of   the   Constitutional   History   of 

Canada.    New  York,  1884. 
Raper,    Charles   Lee,   North   Carolina,   A    Study   in   English   Colonial 

Government.     New  York,  1904. 
Records  of  the  Cohny  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations 

in  New  England.     10  vols.     Providence,  1856-1865. 
Records  of  the  Court  of  Assistants  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 

.  Bay.    2  vols.    Boston,  1901-1904. 
Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New 

England.     Edited  by  N.  B.  Shurtleff.     5  vols.     Boston,  1854. 
Records  of  the  Town  of  Southampton.    4  vols.     Sag-Harbor,  N.  Y., 

1874- 

Records  of  the  Towns  of  North  and  South  Hempstead,  Long  Island, 
New  York.  Edited  by  B.  D.  Hicks.  5  vols.  Jamaica,  1896-1904. 

Reports  of  Record  Commissioners  on  Providence  Town  Records.  5 
vols.  in  four.  Providence,  1892-1897. 

Rhode  Island  Historical  Society   Collections.     Providence,   1827 — 

Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Publications.     Providence,  1893 — 

Rhode  Island  Historical  Tracts.     Providence,  1877 — 

Richman,  Irving  Berd  ne,  Rhode  Is  and,  its  Making  and  its  Meaning, 
etc.  2  vols.  New  York  and  London,  1902. 

Rivers,  William  J.,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South  Carolina  to 
the  Close  of  the  Proprietary  Government  .  .  .  1719,  e.c.  Charles- 
ton, 1856. 

Rivers,  William  J.,  Topics  in  the  History  of  South  Carolina.  Char- 
leston, 1850. 

Robinson,  Conway,  An  Account  of  Discoveries  in  the  West  until  1519 
and  of  Voyages  to  and  along  the  At' antic  Coast  of  North  America 
from  1520  to  1573.  Richmond,  1848. 

Rosier,  James,  A  True  Relation  of  the  most  Prosperous  Voyage  made 
this  present  year,  1605,  by  Captain  George  Weymouth  in  the  Dis- 
covery of  the  Land  of  Virginia.  London,  1605.  (In  Massachu- 
setts Historical  Society  Collections.  Series  3.  Vol.  viii.) 


587]  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Ross,  Peter,  A  History  of  Long  Island  from  its  earliest  settlement  to 
the  present  time.  3  vols.  New  York,  1903. 

Rowland,  Dunbar,  Encyclopedia  of  Mississippi  History.  2  vols.  Madi- 
son, 1907. 

Rupp,  I.  Daniel,  History  of  Lancaster  County,  etc.  Lancaster,  Pa., 
1844- 

Sagard-Theodat,  Gabriel,  Histoire  du  Canada  .  .  .  depuis  Van  1615; 
azec  un  dictionnaire  de  la  langue  huronne.  New  edition.  Paris, 
1866. 

Sainsbury,  Noel,  Ed.,  Calendar  of  State  Papers.  Colonial  series. 
London,  1860 — 

Salone,  £mile,  La  Colonisation  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  etc.  Deuxieme 
edition.  Paris,  1906. 

Salley,  A.  S.,  Journals  of  the  Grand  Council  of  South  Carolina,  Au- 
gust 25,  1671  to  June  24,  1680.  Columbia,  1907.  Journal  of  the 
Commons  House  of  Assembly  of  South  Carolina  .  .  .  September 
20,  1692  .  .  .  October  15,  1692.  Columbia,  1907.  Journals  of  the 
Commons  House  of  Assembly  for  South  Carolina  for  .  .  .  1693. 
Columbia,  1907.  Journal  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly  of 
South  Carolina  .  .  .  January  30,  1696  to  ...  March  17,  1696. 
Columbia,  1908. 

Sanborn,  Frank  B.,  New  Hampshire,  An  Epitome  of  Popular  Govern- 
ment.  Boston  and  New  York,  1904. 

Sandiford,  Ralph,  The  Mystery  of  Iniquity  in  a  Brief  Examination  of 
the  Practice  of  the  Times.  Philadelphia,  1730. 

Schaper,  William  A.,  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South 
Carolina.  Washington,  1901. 

Scharf,  Thomas,  History  of  Delaware,  1609-1888.  2  vols.  Philadel- 
phia, 1888. 

Scharf,  Thomas,  History  of  Westchester  County,  New  York,  includ- 
ing Morrisania,  King's  Bridge,  and  West  Farms,  etc.  2  vols. 
Philadelphia,  1886. 

Scharf,  Thomas,  and  Westcott,  Thompson,  History  of  Philadelphia. 
3  vols.  Philadelphia,  1884. 

Schoonmaker,  Marius,  The  History  of  Kingston.    New  York,  i83S. 

Schuyler,  George  W.,  Colonial  New  York,  Philip  Schuyler  and  his 
Family.  2  vols.  New  York,  1885. 

Sewall,  Samuel,  Diary.  (In  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collec- 
tions. Series  5.  Vol.  v,  vii.)  Boston,  1878-1882. 

Sharp,  Granville,  Extract  from  a  Representation  of  the  Injust'ce  and 
Dangerous  Tendency  of  Tojerating  Slavery  or  Admitting  the 
least  Claim  of  Priiate  Property  in  the  Persons  of  Men  in  New 
England.  London,  1769.  Philadelphia,  1771. 

Shea,  John  Gilmary,  Discovery  and  Exploration  of  the  Mississippi 
Valley,  etc.  New  York,  1853.  Early  Voyages  up  and  down  the 


336  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [588 

Mississippi,  etc.  Albany,  1861.  The  Catholic  Church  in  Colonial 
Days.  New  York,  1886. 

Sheldon,  George,  1636 — Pocumtuck—i886.  A  History  of  Deerfield, 
Massachusetts,  etc.  2  vols.  Deerfield,  Mass.,  1895. 

Shipp,  Barnard,  The  History  of  Hernando  de  Soto  and  Florida;  or 
Record  of  the  Events  of  fifty-six  years  from  1512  to  1568.  Phila- 
delphia, 1881. 

Simms,  William  Gilmore,  The  History  of  South  Carolina,  etc. 

Smith,  George,  History  of  Delaware  County,  Pennsylvania  from  the 
Discovery,  etc.  Philadelphia,  1862. 

Smith,  John,  A  Description  of  New  England,  etc.  (In  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society  Collection.  Series  3.  Vol.  vi.)  Boston,  1836. 

Smith,  T.  Watson,  The  Slave  in  Canada.  (In  Nova  Scotia  Historical 
Society  Collections.  Vol.  x,  1896-1898.)  Halifax,  N.  S. 

South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine.  Charleston, 
1900— 

South  Carolina  Historical  Society  Collections.     Charleston,  1857 — 

Sparks,  Edwin  Erie,  The  Record  of  a  Lost  Empire  in  America.  (In 
"  The  Chatauquan."  Vol.  xxxiii.)  Cleveland,  1901. 

Staples,  William  R.,  Annals  of  the  Town  of  Providence  from  its  first 
Settlement,  etc.  (In  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society  Collections. 
Vol.  5.)  Providence,  1843. 

State  of  the  British  and  French  Colonies  in  North  America,  etc. 
London,  1755. 

Steiner,  Bernard  Christian,  A  History  of  the  Plantation  of  Menun- 
katuck  and  of  the  Original  Town  of  GUI  ford,  Connecticut,  com- 
prising the  present  Towns  of  Guilford  and  Madison,  etc.  Balti- 
more, 1897. 

Steiner,  Bernard  Christian,  History  of  Slavery  in  Connecticut.  (In 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  vol.  xi.)  Baltimore,  1893. 

Stiles,  Henry  Reed,  The  History  and  Genealogies  of  Ancient  Winsor, 
Connecticut,  etc.  New  York,  1859.  A  History  of  the  City  of 
Brooklyn,  etc.  3  vols.  Brooklyn,  1867-1870.  The  History  of 
Ancient  Wethersfield,  Connecticut,  etc.  2  vols.  New  York,  1904. 

Stoddard,  Amos,  Sketches,  Historical  and  Descriptive  of  Louisiana. 
Philadelphia,  1812. 

Stroud,  George  M ,  A  Sketch  of  the  Laws  relating  to  Slavery  in 
the  several  States  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Second  edition. 
Philadelphia,  1856. 

Sumner,  William  Hyslop,  A  History  of  East  Boston  with  Biographical 
Sketches  of  its  Early  Proprietors  and  an  Appendix.  Boston,  1858. 

Sylvester,  Herbert  Milton,  Indian  Wars  of  New  England.  3  vols. 
Boston,  1910. 

Tanguay,  Cyprien,  A  Travers  les  Registres.     Montreal,  1886. 

Thacher,  James,  History  of  the  Town  of  Plymouth  from  .  .  .  1620  to 
.  .  .  1832.  Boston,  1832. 


589]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  337 

Thevet,  Andre,  La  Cosmographie  Universelle,  etc.    2  vols.     Paris,  1575. 

Thomas,  Cyrus,  The  Indians  of  North  America  in  Colonial  Times. 
Philadelphia,  1903. 

Thwaites,  Reuben  Gold,  Ed.,  The  Jesuit  Relations  and  Allied  Docu- 
ments. 73  vols.  Cleveland,  1896-1901.  Father  Marquette.  New 
York,  1902.  Ed.,  Early  Western  Travels,  1748-1846.  32  vols. 
Cleveland,  1904.  Ed.,  New  Voyages  to  North  America  by  the 
Baron  de  La  Hontan.  2  vols.  Chicago,  1905. 

Tiffany,  Charles,  A  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  New  York,  1895. 

Tooker,  William  Wallace,  John  Eliot's  first  Indian  Teacher  and  In- 
terpreter, Cockenoe-de-Long  Island,  and  the  Story  of  his  Career 
from  the  Early  Records.  New  York,  1896. 

Trott,  Nicholas,  Laws  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America  relating 
to  the  Church  and  the  Clergy,  Religion  and  Learning.  London, 
1721. 

Tucker,  St.  George,  A  Dissertation  on  Slavery.     Philadelphia,  1776. 

Updike,  Wilkins,  History  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Narragansett, 
Rhode  Island,  including  a  History  of  other  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  State,  etc.  New  York,  1847. 

Usher,  James  M.,  History  of  the  Town  of  Medford,  Middlesex  County, 
Massachusetts,  etc.  Boston,  1886. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Mrs.  Schuyler,  History  of  the  City  of  New  York 
in  the  Seventeenth  Century.  2  vols.  New  York,  1909. 

Vestry  Book  and  Register  of  Bristol  Parish,  Virginia,  1720-1789. 
Richmond,  1898. 

Virginia  Company  of  London,  Abstract  of  the  proceedings  .  .  .  1619- 
1624,  prepared  from  the  records  in  the  library  of  Congress,  by  C. 
Robinson  and  edited  by  R.  A.  Brock.  2  vols.  (In  Virginia  His- 
torical Society  Collections,  1888-1889.)  Richmond. 

Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections.     Richmond,  1882 — 

Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.    Richmond,   1894 — 

Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Pro- 
vince of  Pennsylvania,  etc.  6  vols.  Philadelphia,  1752-1776. 

Walker,  George  Leon,  History  of  the  First  Church  in  Hartford, 
1633-1883.  Hartford,  1884. 

Wallace,  Joseph,  History  of  Illinois  and  Louisiana  under  French 
rule,  etc.  Cincinnati,  1893. 

Washburn,  Emory,  Historical  Sketches  of  the  Town  of  Leicester, 
Massachusetts,  during  the  first  century  from  its  settlement.  Boston, 
1860. 

Waters,  Thomas  Franklin,  Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony. 
Ipswich,  Mass.,  1905. 

Watson,  John  F.,  Annals  and  Occurrences  of  New  York  City  and 
State  in  the  Olden  Time,  etc.  Philadelphia,  1846. 


338  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [59O 

Watson,  John   F.,  Annals   of  Philadelphia   and  Pennsylvania   in   the 

Olden  Time.    2  vols.     Philadelphia,   1857. 
Weeden,  William  Babcock,  Early  Rhode  Island,  a  social  History  of 

the  People.    New  York,  1910. 
Weeden,    William    Babcock,    Economic    and   Social   History    of   New 

England,  1620-1789.    2  vols.     Boston  and  New  York,  1894. 
Weise,  Arthur  James,  The  History  of  the  City  of  Albany,  New  York, 

etc.     Albany,  1884. 
Wheeler,  Jacob  O.,  A  Practical  Treatise  of  the  Law  of  Slavery.     New 

York  and  New  Orleans,  1737. 
William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly.     Vols.  vi  and  viii.     Richmond, 

1898  and  1900. 
Williamson,    The   History   of  North   Carolina.    2  vols.     Philadelphia, 

1812. 
Williamson,  William  Durkee,  The  History  of-  the  State  of  Maine  .  .  . 

to  .  .  .  1820.    2  vols.    Hallowell,  1832. 
Wilson,     Daniel     Munro,     Where     American     Independence     Began. 

Quincy,  its  famous  Group  of  Patriots;   their  Deeds,  Homes  and 

Descendants.     Boston  and  New  York,  1902. 
Winfield,  Charles  H.,  History  of  the  County  of  Hudson,  New  Jersey, 

etc.     New  York,   1874. 
Winsor,  Justin,   The  Memorial  History   of  Boston  including  Suffolk 

County,  Massachusetts,  1630-1880.    4  vols.     Boston,  1880.    Narra- 
tive and  Critical  History  of  America.    8  vols.     Boston,  1886-1889. 

The  Mississippi  Basin.     Boston  and  New  York,  1895. 
Winthrop,   John,  Journal  History   of  New  England,    1630-1649.     (In 

Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History.)     2  vols.     New 

York,  1908. 
Winthrop,  'Robert,  Life  and  Letters  of  John  Winthrop.   2  vols.    Boston, 

1864. 

Wisconsin  Historical  Society  Collections.     Madison,   1855 — 
Year  Book   of  the  So£iety  of  Colonial   Wars  in   the   Commonwealth 

of  Massachusetts.     Boston,   1897 — 

Year  Books,  City  of  Charleston.    Charleston,  South  Carolina,  1880 — 
Young,  Alexander,  Chronicles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  the  Colony 

of  Plymouth   from    1602    to    1625,    etc.     Second    edition.     Boston, 

1844- 

MANUSCRIPT  MATERIAL 

Allen,  Ethan,  Calendar  of  Maryland  State  Papers.     In  the  Library  of 

the  Maryland  Historical  Society. 

Bancroft  Papers  relating  to  Carolina.     In  the  New  York  City  Library. 
Baptismal  Register  of  Mobile,  Alabama,  from  1704  to  1740.     In  the 

Cathedral  at  Mobile. 


591  ]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  339 

Journal  of  the  Board  of  Trade.    In  the  Public  Record  Office,  London. 

Louisiana  Historical  Society  Transcripts.     New  Orleans,  La. 

Massachusetts  Manuscript  Records.     In  the  State  House  at  Boston. 

Mississippi  Manuscript  Records.    Jackson,  Miss. 

Notes  et  Documents  Historiques  de  la  Louisiane.  Transcript  in  the 
library  of  the  Louisiana  Historical  Society.  New  Orleans,  La. 

Records  of  the  Friends'  Yearly  Meeting  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Jersies.  Philadelphia  Meeting  House. 

Records  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts.  In  the  Society's  Building.  London. 

Selection  of  Christian  and  Brotherly  Advices  given  forth  from  Time 
to  Time  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  for  Pennsylvania  and 
New  Jersey  held  alternately  at  Burlington  and  Philadelphia:  alpha- 
betically digested  under  Proper  Heads.  Philadelphia  Meeting 
House. 

South  Carolina  Manuscript  Records.     Columbia,  S.  C. 

Transcripts  in  the  library  of  Mr.  Peter  J.  Hamilton  of  Mobile,  Ala. 


INDEX 


Abnaki,  Indian  tribe,  take  slaves  from 
Illinois,  70 

Acolapissa,  Indian  tribe,  attacked  and 
enslaved  by  Chickasaw  and  English, 
185 

Addington,  Isaac,  secretary  of  council  of 
safety,  293;  hires  Indians,  293 

Adoption,  43 

Advertisements  of  Indian  slaves,  243, 
244 

Agona,  chief,  seized  by  Cartier,  72 

Agriculture,  36,  83 

Alabama,  tribe,  enslave  and  sell  Mo- 
bile Indians,  75 

Albany,  common  council,  act  concerning 
fugitive  slaves,  221;  treaty  of,  202; 
restrictions  on  slaves,  260 

Alcaldes,  enslave  Indians,  61 

Algonquin,  nation,  hold  Indian  slaves, 
28 

Altamaha,  tribe,  75 

Amalgamation,  cause  of  decline  of  slav- 
ery, 107,  287 

Anastasius,  Father,  given  an  Indian  girl, 
Si 

Antilles,  discovery,  48 

Apache,  tribe,  enslaved  by  Choctaw,  30 

Apalache,  tribe,  enslaved  by  Carolina 
settlers,  120,  121;  attacked  by  Eng- 
lish Indians,  171;  attack  missions  of 
Santa  Catalina  and  Santa  be,  179 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  268 

Archdale,  John,  governor  of  South  Caro- 
lina, tries  to  check  trade  in  Indians, 
178 

Aricara,  tribe,  31 

Arizona,  30,  60 

Arkansas,  tribe,  27,  64,  70,  75 

Assembly,  of  South  Carolina,  takes  up 
matter  of  trade  m  Indians,  180-185; 
of  Virginia  regarding  Indian  slaves, 
186 

Athapascan,  hold  slaves,  33 

Atlantic  slope,  Indian  slavery  in,  25 

593] 


Awanthonks,  squaw  sachem,  148 
Azores,  Indians  carried  to,  125,  127 

Bacon,  sells  captives  as  slaves,  119;  in- 
stigates assembly  to  legalize  enslave- 
ment of  Indians,  131 

Bacon,  Lord,  sees  Indians  in  England, 

154 

Bannister,  Mr.,  before  Board  of  Trade, 
1 88 

Baptism,  of  Indian  slaves,  88,  89;  rela- 
tion to  freedom,  267-275 

Barbadoes,  governor  of,  sends  Indians 
back  to  Massachusetts,  167;  South 
Carolina  sends  Indians  to,  202 

Barnwell,  Colonel,  expedition  to  Florida, 
1 20;  expedition  to  North  Carolina, 
122 

Barter,  27,  37,  (see  trade) 

Bartram,  on  Indian  slaves,  35,  42 

Bellomont,  Governor,  reports  on  relig- 
ious conditions  of  slaves,  272 

Benezet,  Anthony,  opposed  to  Indian 
slavery,  307 

Berkeley,  Dean,  on  decrease  of  number 
of  Indians,  286 ;  on  Indians  as  hired 
servants,  294 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  on  conditions  in 
Virginia,  108;  sells  Indian  captives, 
119;  proposes  enslavement  of  In- 
dians, 131;  buys  Indian  slaves,  301 

Bermudas,  Indian  slaves  carried  to,  124, 
127,  202 

Bienville,  commandant  at  New  Orleans, 
28,  64;  orders  Canadian  French  to 
stop  urging  Indians  to  war,  78;  pro- 
poses exchanging  Indians  in  West 
Indies  for  negroes,  78,  97;  sells  In- 
dians to  English,  78;  complains  of 
neglect  of  agriculture  in  Louisiana, 
84;  states  that  French  colonists  de- 
sire negroes,  97;  arranges  peace  be- 
tween Choctaw  and  Chickasaw,  173 

Birth,  method  of  enslavement,  207 

341 


342 


INDEX 


[594 


Birth-rate,  decreased,  cause  of  decline 
of  Indian  slavery,  285 

Blackfeet,  tribe,  slavery  among,  45 

Bl  ock  Island,  slaves  in,  no 

Blount,  Tom,  chiel,  receives  Indian 
captives  as  slaves  as  reward  for  aid- 
ing English,  133 

Board  of  Commissioners,  appointed  by 
South  Carolina  to  deal  with  trade  in 
Indians,  181;  attempts  to  check 
traders,  183 

Board  of  Trade,  reports  to,  in,  118 

Bossu,  journey  of,  70 

Boston,  slaves  in,  109,  126,  180,  187, 
274,  299;  prohibitions  on  slaves,  260 

Boston  News  Letter,  beginning  of,  218; 
advertises  runaways,  218 

Bradford,  on  number  of  Indians,  284 

Branding,  punishment,  261 

Bressani,  Father,  captured  by  Iroquois, 

47 
Bristol  Parish,  Virginia,  Indian  slaves 

in,  229 
British  Columbia,  Indian  slavery  in,  46 

Cabo  de  Santa  Elena,  Cape,  53 
Cabot,  Sebastian,  kidnaps  Indians,  154 
Cadadaquiou,  tube,  enslaved,  30 
Cadillac,     report     concerning      Indian 

slaves,  78 

Cahouita,  tribe,  enslaved,  75 
Calicott,  Richard,  has  Indian  slave,  243 
California,  33;   missions,  59,  60 
Canada,  acquisition  of,  64;   population 
Caof,  93 

Capawick  (Martha's  Vineyard),  157 
Cape  Fear,  Indians  kidnapped,  159,  197 
2>ape  Francois,  Indians  sent  to,  67,  68 
Capitulation  of  Montreal,  64,  93 

rolina,    Indians    captured,    29;     In- 
dians exported  from,  117;   coureurs 
de  bois  sell  Indians  into,  168;   French 
idea  concerning  policy  of,  171 
Carondelet,  Baron,  orders  slaves  to  re- 
main with  owners,  58 
Cartier,  kidnaps  Indians,   71,   72;    re- 
ceives Indians  as  gifts,  79;  uses  In- 
dian slaves  as  guides,  82 
Catawba  ttibe,  reduced  in  numbers,  287 
Cenis,  tiibe,  have  slaves,  34,  37,  38 
Champigny,  sends  Indians  to  France,  73 
Champlain,  given  Indians  by  a  chief,  80 
Charity,  Indian  girl  given  Champlain,  So 
Charleston,  Indian  slaves  in,  109,  121, 

i  So 
Chat,  tribe,  enslaved,  29 


Cherokee,  tribe,  abolish  slavery,  46; 
hostile  to  English,  136;  treaty  with, 
136;  demand  that  English  give  up  en- 
slaved members  of  their  tribe,  137; 
sold  as  slaves,  137;  complain  that 
tribes  prey  on  each  other  for  slaves, 
170;  other  tribes  join  with,  287 

Chester  County,  Pennsylvania,  Indian 
slaves  in,  1 1 6 

Chickasaw,  tribe,  war  with  French,  69; 
slave  of  Bienville,  86;  prey  on  tribes 
for  captives  to  sell,  30,  171;  allies  of 
English,  34,  171;  French  try  to  de- 
stroy alliance  of,  171;  lose  500  pris- 
oners in  ten  years,  172;  obtain  slaves 
from  distant  nations,  172;  French  at- 
tempt to  make  them  friends  of  Choc- 
taw,  173;  attack  Choctaw,  173;  en- 
slave Shawnee,  173;  armed  by  Eng- 
lish of  Virginia,  185 

Children,  sold  for  food,  26 

Chimmesyan,  tribe,  33 

Chinook,  tribe,  slavery  among,  46 

Chinookan,  tribe,  33 

Choctaw,  tribe,  enslave  other  Indians, 
30,  75;  friends  of  French,  33;  allies 
of  English,  171 ;  lose  800  prisoners  in 
ten  years,  172;  French  attempt  to 
make  them  friends  of  Chickasaw,  173 

Chouman,  tribe,  34 

Church,  sanctions  slavery,  48;  mission- 
ary labors  of,  87 

Church,  Captain  Benjamin,  receives 
Indians  to  transport,  140;  instructed 
to  go  against  Indians,  142:  to  distri- 
bute captives  among  soldiers,  142; 
to  receive  captives  from  governor  of 
Rhode  Island,  142 

Church  act,  269 

Cibola,  31,  52 

Clermont,  Sieur  Pierre,  manumits  Indian 
slave,  95 

Clinton,  Governor,  on  Indian  slaves  in 
New  York,  114;  tries  to  prevent 
abuse  of  apprenticeship,  206 

Clothing  of  slaves,  42,  251-252 

Cocheco,  seizure  of  Indians  at,  147,  309 

Code  Noir,  90,  102. 

Co'lacot,  Sergeant,  agreement  of  Massa- 
chusetts with,  222 

Colonists,  of  Louisiana,  character  of,  82; 
used  slave  women  as  mistresses,  82 

Columbia  River  country,  Indian  slavery 

in.  33.-  45»  46 

Columbus,  enslaves  Indians,  48 
Comanche,  tribe,  86 


595] 


INDEX 


343 


Company,  of  the  Indies,  64;  of  the 
West,  102;  of  Providence  Island, 

I25 

Compostella,  54. 

Concessions,  negroes  on,  102 

Congaree,  tribe,  preys  on  weaker  tribes, 
170 

Connecticut,  slaves  in,  no,  in,  123, 
128,  [30-131;  act  against  importing 
Indians,  189-191;  enslaves  Indians 
as  punishment,  206;  restricts  Indian 
slaves,  260:  favors  religious  instruc- 
tion of  slaves,  275;  exchanges  Indian 
sLve  for  land,  277;  regulates  manu- 
mission, 281;  regulates  action  of 
slaves,  290;  finds  Indian  slaves  un- 
satisfactory, 291;  hired  Indians  in, 
204:  indentured  Indians  in,  295 

Cooks,  hired  Indians  as,  243;  Indian 
slaves  as,  243 

Copper,  object  of  barter,  27 

Coranine,  tribe,  destruction  of,  287 

Cornbury,  Governor,  on  fugitive  slave 
law,  221 ;  helps  in  conversion  of 
slaves,  268 

Coronado,  Franc:sco  Vasquez  de,  31, 
52,  53;  uses  Indian  slaves  as  guides, 

Cosme,  owns  Indian  slave,  81 

Council,  Indian,  40,  42;  grand  of  South 
Carolina  sends  agents  to  remove 
Indian  slaves  from  plantations,  175; 
opposed  to  proprietors,  176 

Coureurs  de  bois,  stir  up  tribes,  64;  pur- 
chase Indians,  75,  76,  77,  78,  168; 
Indianized  Frenchmen,  87;  trade,  96 

Cramoi»y,  on  Indian  slaves.  86 

Creeks,  tribe,  enslaved  by  Indians,  121 ; 
other  tribes  join  with,  287 

Crows,  tribe,  slavery  among,  45 

Cruzat,  Lieutenant-governor,  proclama- 
tion of  against  enslavement  of  In- 
dians, 58 

Culacut,  Steward,  desires  Indian  slaves, 
310 

Cutler,  Reverend  Timothy,  reports  on 
religious  condition  of  slaves  in  Bos- 
ton, 274 

Dartmouth,  Indians,  seized  by  Plymouth, 

146 
Davenport,  Lieutenant,  desires  Indian 

slave,  310;  Reverend  John,  on  Indian 

slaves,  209 
Dealers,  in   Indians   state   reasons   for 

traffic,  177 


Death,  punishment,  261 

De  Ayllon,  cedula  issued  to,  49;  sends 
expedition,  53 

De  Beauharnois,  governor  of  Canada,  94 

De  Boucberville,  journey  to  Canada,  32 

De  Bourgmont,  32.  64;  purchases  In- 
dians. 74,  80;  sends  Indian  slaves  to 
New  Orleans,  74;  uses  slave  as  inter- 
preter, 82;  uses  slaves  as  bribes  and 
rewards,  86 

Decline  of  Indian  slavery,  59,  96-102, 
281-319 

Deer  Is'and,  Indians  sent  to,  143 

De  Figueroa,  Vasco  Porcallo,  52 

De  la  Baire,  expedition  against  Iro- 
quois,  85 

De  Leon,  patent  of,  49;  proclamation 
of,  50 

De  Lignery,  proposes  that  tribes  ex- 
change slaves,  38 

De  I.ouvignery,  demands  slaves  of  Fox 
Indians,  71 

De  Morfi,  Fiay  Agustin,  describes 
mission,  61 

De  Narvaez,  51 ;   collapse  of  expedition, 

53. 

De  Niza,  Fray  Marcos,  52 
j  Denonville,  expedition  against  Iroquois, 

85 

Derby,  Indian  slaves  in,  300 
Detroit,  38,  75;   slavery  in,  93,  99 
De  Vaca,  Cabeza,  enslaved,  46;   on  In- 
dian slavery,  54 
De     Vaudreuil,    governor  -  general    of 

Canada,  demands  slaves  from  tribes, 

70 
Disease,   cause   of   decline    of    Indian 

slavery,  41,  96,  283,  285 
Doagges,  tribe,  131 
Dongan,  Governor,  report  on  religious 

condition  of  slaves,  272 
Donnes,  66 
Dubuisson,  38 

Du  Chapart,  governor  of  Ft.  Rosalie,  67 
Dudley,  Governor,  report  on  slaves,  109 
Duke's  Laws,  on  baptism  of  slaves,  272 
Du  Luth,  38;  expedition,  74;  given 

Indian    slaves,    81;     uses    slave    as 

guide,  82 
Dunmore,  Earl  of,  authorizes  court  for 

trial  of  slaves,  256 
Dunn,  pastor  of  South  Carolina  parish, 

to  S.  P.  G.  F.  P.,  267 
Du  Pont,  receives  Indian  as  gift,  80 
Dutch,  enslave  and  transport  Indians, 

112-113 


344 


INDEX 


[596 


Du  Tisne,  28,  31,  73,  74;  meditates 
peace  between  Pawnee  and  Padouca, 
31 

East  Nottingham,  Pennsylvania,  Indian 

slaves  in,  116 
Elior,  John,  redeems  Indian  slaves  sold 

abroad,    128;     hires    Indians,    293; 

translates    Bible,    293;     opposed    to 

Indian  slavery,  305;  has  Indian  slave 

as  tutor,  243 
Employment  of   Indian  slaves,  35-39, 

55,  83  86,  242-249 
Endicot  (Endecot !,  desires  Indian  slave, 

310 

England,  rival  power,  71 
Erie,  tribe,  enslaved,  29 
Esaw,  tribe,  prey  on  western  tribes,  170 
Esclavos,  Indian  community,  25 
Esquimaux,  enslaved,  28 
Eyanoco,  chief,  has  white  slaves,  46 
Faith,  Indian  girl  given  to  Champlain, 

80 

Famine,  cause  of  slavery,  26,  41 
Fayal,   one   of    A/ores,    125;     Indians 

carried     from     Plymouth     to,     125; 

Indians  seized  by  Laughton   carried 

to,  161 
Fishing,  employment  of  Indian  slaves, 

37 

Flathead,  tribe,  32 
Florida,  27,  29,  30,  48,  51,  52,  59;   free 

Indians  in,  284 
Fontaine,    Reverend    Peter,    advocates 

intermairiage  of  whites  and  Indians, 

252 

Fontanedo,  48 
Food,  of  slaves,  42 
Forbes,  account  of  church  in  Virginia, 

269 

Fort  Carolina,  79 
Fort  Royal,  119 
Fox,  tribe,  war  with  French,  69,   71; 

valley,  87 
France,  66,  71;   Indians  carried  to,  71, 

72;    laws  of,  89;    sends  indentured 

white    servants     to    America,    100; 

senos  negroes  to  America,  101 
Franciscans,  59 
Freedom,  of  slaves,  42,  43,  44,  45  (see 

manumission.) 
Fremin,  Father,  35 
Friends,  own   Indian   slaves,  115-116; 

opposed  to  Indian  slavery,  307 
Friends'     yearly    meeting,    action     on 

slavery,  116 


Frobisher,  kidnaps  Indians,  155 

Fugitive  slave  law,  220;  in  articles  of 
confederation  of  United  Colonies, 
224 

Fundamental  Constitutions  of  Carolina, 
269 

Fur  trade,  73,  74;  connected  with  pur- 
chase of  slaves  from  Indians,  168 

Galleys,  French,  Indian  slaves  in,  73 

Gamblers,  Indians  as,  26 

General  court,  Massachusetts,  autho- 
rizes enslavement  of  Indians,  124, 
126,  127,  128,  137,  139;  decree  re- 
garding retention  of  male  Indian 
slaves  in  colony,  145;  Plymouth, 
137;  disposes  of  captives,  139;  de- 
cree regarding  retention  of  male 
Indian  slaves  in  colony,  145;  decree 
regarding  purchase  of  captive  Indian 
children,  146;  sanctions  seizure  of 
peaceable  Inoians,  146;  disposes  of 
Dartmouth  Ir.dians,  146;  Connecti- 
cut, orders  that  Indians  who  sur- 
render shall  not  be  transported,  149; 
arranges  to  dispose  of  captives,  149 

Georgia,  repott   on,  107;   slaves  in.  108 

Gibson,  bishop  of  London,  declares 
baptism  does  not  free  slaves,  275 

Gome/,  51 

Gookin,  Lieutenant-governor,  receives 
comp'aint  of  Indians  regarding  kid- 
napping, 162 

Goose  Creek,  parish  in  South  Carolina, 
^267 

Gorges,  Sir  Ferdinand,  patron  of  Wey- 
mouth,  154;  given  Indians,  155,  157; 
condemns  capture  of  Indians,  158 

Great  Lakes,  28,  36 

Great  Plains,  25 

Great  Sun,  chief  of  Natchez,  68 

Green  Bay,  38 

Grelon,  27 

Guns,  objects  of  barter,  27 

ITaida,  tribe,  33 

Harley,  Captain  Henry,  brings  Indians 
to  Gorges,  157 

Ilarlow,  Captain  Edward,  kidnaps  In- 
dians, 157 

Hartford,  levies  on  slaves  of  townsmen, 
247 

Haskell,  pastor  of  St.  Thomas  parish, 
South  Carolina,  267 

Hatchets,  objects  of  barter,  27 

Hawaikuh,  52 


597] 


INDEX 


345 


Heathcote,  to  Townsend,  200 
Hempstead,  Indian  slaves  in,  114,  201 
Hendrickson,   finds    Indian    slaves    in 
Schuylkill    River   country,    29;   finds 
white  slaves  among  Mohawk,  47 
Heunepin,  on  slaves   among    Iroquois, 

Hispaniola,  Indian  slaves  in,  53 

Hobson,  (  aptain,  brings  two  of  Hunt's 
Ind  an  captives  back  to  Ameiica,  158 

Hocquart,  intendant  of  Canada,  94 

Ilolman,  Ensign,  agreement  of  Massa- 
chusetts with,  222 

Hope,  Indian  girl  given  Champlain,  80 

Horse,  tribe,  32 

Hunt,   Captain    Thomas,   kidnaps    In- 
dians, 158 

Hunter,  Governor,  petition  to,  regarding 
Spaniards  in  New  York,  318 

Hunting,  occupation  of  Indian  slaves,  37  | 

Hupa,  tribe,  33 

Huron,  tribe,  27,  28,  29,  32,  34,  35,  36, 
37.42 

Hytie,  Governor,  on  enslavement  of  j 
Indians,  133 

Iberville,  baptism  of  his  Indian  slave,  89  ; 

Illinois,  tribe,  27,  28,  29,  31,  37,  38,  64,  i 
70,  80;  area,  32;  Indian  slaves  in,  I 
93,  102;  negro  slaves  in,  102 

Incle  and  Varico,  play  and  opera,  303 

Indentured  servants,  Indians  as,  295;  j 
white,  295-297 

Indians,  as  hired  laborers,  59;  as  ap-  j 
prentices,  196 

Indian  slaves,  among  the  aborigines,  [ 
25-47;  among  the  Spaniards,  48  62;  | 
among  the  French,  63-102;  among 
the  English,  102-310;  in  the  Caro- 
linas,  66-108;  in  Georgia,  108;  in 
Virginia,  1 08;  in  Massachusetts,  109- 
uo;  in  Rhode  Island,  no;  in  Con- 
necticut, no-ill;  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, II J;  in  New  Netherland,  112- 
113;  in  New  York,  113;  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, 115;  in  New  Jersey,  116;  in 
Maryland,  117;  by  warfare,  118-153; 
war  with  Stono  Indians,  119;  war 
with  Kussoe  Indians,  119;  war  of 
Spanish  succession,  119;  Tuscarora 
War,  1 21;  Pequot  War,  123;  King 
Philip's  War,  125;  Bacon's  rebellion, 
131 ;  disposed  of  by  colonial  govern- 
ments, 132-152;  bv  kidnapping,  154- 
167;  by  trade,  168-195;  Su'^  ^y 
family  or  tribe.  196;  abuse  of  ap- 


prenticeship, 198-201;  punishment, 
201 ;  birth,  207-210;  considered  prop- 
erty, 211-241:  bought  and  sold,  216; 
advertised  for  sale,  216;  disposed  of 
by  will,  216;  runaways  advertised, 
218,  219;  disputes  concerning,  settled 
by  court,  225;  personal  property, 
226;  real  property,  226;  regarded 
as  taxables,  227-228;  import  and 
export  duties  on,  233;  as  hunters, 
fisherman  and  guides,  242;  employed 
in  fields,  244—245;  in  manual  occu- 
pations, 245;  hired  out  by  owners, 
245;  in  military  occupations,  246- 
240.;  captured  by  French  from  Eng- 
lish army,  246;  included  by  implica- 
tion in  legislative  acts  relating  to 
slaves,  253;  right  to  testify  in  court, 
254-255;  granted  right  to  life,  2515; 
prohibitions  on,  259,  260;  punish- 
ments, 260—264;  religious  instruction 
of,  264  275;  manumission,  57,  94- 
95,  276-282;  freed  by  owner,  276; 
purchase  freedom,  276;  regulaiion 
of  actions  after  emancipation,  280; 
decline  of  use  of,  283-319;  poor 
domestics,  288;  implicated  in  slave 
disturbances.  289;  included  in  laws 
concerning  slaves  by  implication,  290; 
values  of,  298-302;  less  valuable 
than  negroes,  302;  use  of,  abolished 
in  Virginia,  312;  in  South  Carolina, 
315;  in  Rhode  Island,  316;  in  New 
York,  317 

Ipswich,  slaves  in,  109,  298 

Iroquois,  tribe,  27,  28,  29,  31,  34,  35,  36, 
37>  38,  41;  effect  on  Indian  slavery, 
117 

Jenney,  Reverend,  on  Indian  slaves, 
114,  273 

Jesuits,  27,  34,  35,  41,  42;  oppose  sale 
of  Indians,  78,  79;  enslaved  by  Iro- 
quois, 47 

Johnson,  missionary  in  South  Carolina, 
on  Indian  slaves,  121 

Johnson,  Nathaniel,  governor  of  Caro- 
lina, 106;  report  on  condition  of 
Carolina,  106;  refuses  to  sell  Indian 
perquisites,  183 

Johnson,  Robert,  governor  of  Carolina, 
makes  peace  between  nations,  172 

Johnson,  William,  on  Indian  slaves  in 
New  York,  114 

Jolliet,  given  an  Indian,  80 


346 


INDEX 


[593 


Jones,  Reverend  Hugh,  on  baptizing 
Indian  and  negro  slaves,  271 

Jordan,  river,  53 

Joutel,  37 

Judicial  decisions  recognize  children  of 
slave  mothers  as  slaves,  210 

Kansas,  tribe,  31,  32,  74,  81,  86 

Kaskaskia,  Indian  slaves  at,  70,  76,  78; 
churcn  records  of,  89 

Keith,  Sir  William,  owned  Indian  slaves, 
1.6 

Kettles,  objects  of  barter,  27 

Kidnapping,  154-167;  contrary  to  law, 
165;  legislation  regarding,  166;  Vir- 
ginia act  regarding,  166;  Maryland 
act  regarding,  166;  Massachusetts 
act  regarding,  166;  New  Jersey  act 
regarding,  167;  New  Hampshire  act 
regarding,  167 

Kieft,  Governor,  requested  by  United 
Colonies  to  return  runaway  Indian 
slave,  233 

King  Blount,  chief,  North  Carolina 
orders  to  return  runaway  Indian 
slaves,  222;  buys  Indians,  302 

King  Philip,  wife  and  son  transported, 
127 

King  Philip's  War,  captives,  enslaved, 
no,  in,  121;  131;  ran  away,  218; 
to  receive  religious  instructions,  273 

Kishkakon,  tribe,  80 

Klamath,  tribe,  33 

Knives,  objects  of  barter,  27 

Kussoe,  tribe,  war  with,  119;  captives 
sold  as  slaves,  119,  134 

La  Harpe,  journey  in  southwest,  30,  73; 
seized  Indians,  73;  given  Indians,  81 

La  Hontan,  35,  37 

l.a  Jeune,  28,  36 

La  Salle,  expedition  of,  34,  35;  death 
of,  47;  urges  Illinois  against  Iroquois, 
70;  reports  Indian  slaves  held  by 
French,  75,  77;  advocates  enslave- 
ment of  Indians,  76;  given  Indians,  81 

Las  Casas,  opponent  of  Indian  slavery, 
6s,  3°4 

La  Tore,  Francis,  kidnaps  Indians,  162 

Laudonniere,  given  Indians,  79;  intends 
using  slaves  as  guides,  82 

Laughton,  John,  captures  and  sells  In- 
dians abroad,  161;  indicted  for  the 
act,  161 

La  Verendrye,  32;  sends  Indian  slaves 
to  French  settlements,  74 


Law,     customary,     recognizes     Indian 

slavery,  212 

Leisler,  Jacob,  grievances  against,  1 14 
Le  Jau,  missionary,  266 
Le  Page  du  Pratz,  uses  Indian  slave  as 

cook  and  interpreter,  83 
Le  Sueur,  given  Indians,  8t 
1  .evis,  parish  register  of,  88 
Little  Compton,  hired  Indians  in,  293 
Little    Sun,   chief's   son,  sent  to   West 

Indies,  68 

Long,  journal  of,  98 
Longfellow,  htephen,  owns  Indian  slave, 

274 

Long  Point,  parish  register  of,  88 
Louis  de  la  Louisiane,  Fort,  90 
Louis  XIV,  edict  of,  63;  orders  captive 

Indians  sent  to  France,  85 
Louisiana,  57,  59.  64,  67,  77,  82,  83; 

church  records  of,  88;   census  of,  91 ; 

report  on,  91;  negro  slaves  in,  101 

MacSparran,  betters  religious  condition 
of  slaves  in  Narragansett,  275 

Madeira,  Indian  slaves  in,  163 

Maine,  Indians  from,  carried  to  Massa- 
chusetts as  slaves,  105;  carried  to  the 
Azores,  125 

Maine,  Thomas,  on  preying  of  tribe 
upon  tribe  for  slaves,  171 

Makah,  tribe,  43 

Mallet,  expedition,  uses  slaves  as  guides, 
82 

Mandan,  tribe,  43 

Mantantons,  tribe,  81 

Manumission  of  Indian  slaves,  57,  94, 
195,  276-282 

Marcy,  Moses,  owns  Indian  slave,  288 

Markham,  Governor  William,  owns  In- 
dian slave,  116 

Marquette,  Father,  27;  given  an  Indian 
slave,  80 

Marriages,  of  slaves,  42,  43,  252;  of 
French  and  Indians,  87 

Martha's  Vineyard,  general  court  grants 
slaves  right  of  appeal,  257 

Maryland,  Indian  slavts  in,  117;  in- 
dentured white  servants  in,  117;  as- 
sembly authorizes  enslavement  of 
Indians,  132;  act  against  kidnapping, 
166;  decrees  children  shall  follow 
condition  of  father,  208;  decrees 
slavery  as  condition  of  slave  parents' 
children,  209;  recognizes  Indian 
slaves  as  property,  217;  permits  own- 
ers to  hire  out  slaves,  246;  forbids 


599] 


INDEX 


347 


marriage  of  whites  and  slaves.  253; 
permits  slaves  to  testify  at  trial  of 
slaves,  255;  remunerates  owners  of 
executed  slaves,  259;  encourages 
baptism  of  slaves,  271 

Mascoutens,  tribe,  38 

Mason,  fohn,  commander  in  campaign 
against  Narraganset,  138;  authorized 
to  enslave  captives,  138;  on  runaway 
Indian  slaves,  218;  declares  Pequot 
captives  poor  slaves,  288 

Massachusetts,  Indian  slaves  in,  123, 
124,  126,  187;  exports  Pequot  cap- 
tives, 124;  exports  other  Indians, 
126;  act  against  kidnapping,  1 66; 
act  against  importation  of  Indians, 
1 88;  act  against  exportation  of  In- 
dians, 188;  act  to  prevent  abuse  of 
apprenticeship,  198;  sentences  In- 
dians to  slavery  as  punishment  for 
ciime,  202,  203,  205;  remunerates 
owner  for  Indian  slave  taken  from 
him,  225;  courts  settle  disputed  own- 
ership of  slaves,  225;  regards  In>lian 
slaves  as  taxables.  230-231;  forbids 
marriage  of  whites  and  negroes  or 
Indians,  252;  provides  for  slave 
courts,  261,  262;  regulates  sale  of 
spirituous  liquor  to  Indians,  264; 
provides  religious  instruction  tor  cap- 
tives of  King  Pnilip's  War,  273;  re- 
munerates owner  tor  slave  taken  from 
him,  279,  280;  provides  freedom  as 
reward  to  slave,  280;  regulates  ac- 
tions of  slaves,  290;  legislation  shows 
Indian  slaves  unsatisfactory,  291; 
requires  license  to  hire  Indians,  292 

Matthews,  deputy,  removed  by  proprie- 
tors, 174 

Mayhew,  Experience,  regrets  lack  of  re- 
ligious instruction  for  slaves,  273; 
tells  of  Indian  slave  purchasing 
liberty,  277 

Mdewakanton,  tribe,  81 

Medford,  slaves  in,  263 

Mendoza,  viceroy,  31,  52,  53 

Menendez,  30,  48;  brings  negroes  to 
Florida,  59 

Menommee,  tribe,  32 

Mexico,  26,  34,  56 

Miami,  tribe,  29 

Miantonomo,  chief,  agreement  with 
Massachusetts,  221 

Michigan,  Indian  slavery  in,  33 

Middleton,  deputy,  removed  by  proprie- 
tors of  Carolina,  1 74 


Milton,  Indian  slaves  in,  298 

Mining,  occupation  of  Indian  slaves,  37 

Mimsiry,  of  the  colonies,  91 

Minquae,  tribe,  have  white  slaves,  47 

Miro,  governor,  frees  slaves,  58 

Missions,  59,  60,  66 

Missionaries,  as  slave  holders,  65,  66, 
67;  advocate  enslavement  of  Indians, 
76 

Mississippi,  river,  31,  36;  valley,  92 

Missouri,  tribe,  32,  33,  64 

Mistick  Fight,  captives  enslaved,  123 

Mistresses,  Indian  slaves  used  as  by  In- 
dians, 36;  by  Spaniards,  55;  by 
French,  83 

I  Mobile,  tribe,  held  as  slaves  by  P'rench, 
75;  settlement,  73,  75;  church  records 
of,  88,  89;  purposes  of  establishment 
of,  172 

Modoc,  tribe,  33 

Mohawk,  have  white  slaves,  47 

Mohegan,  tiibe,  at  war  with  Xarragan- 
set,  138;  hired  by  English,  294 

Monmonth,  county,  New  Jersey,  Indian 
slaves  in,  117 

Montagnais,  tribe,  80 

Montreal,  capitulation  of,  64, 93;  slavery 
in,  92 

Moore,  Governor,  enslaves  and  exports 
Indians,  119,  120,  135;  Colonel,  ex- 
pedition of,  to  North  Carolina,  122; 
deputy,  removed  by  proprie  ors,  174; 
forces  council  to  annul  election  of 
Moreton  as  governor,  170;  on  traffic 
in  Indians,  179;  employs  Indian 
slaves  in  fields,  245 

Moreton,  Governor  Joseph,  instructed 
by  proprietors  not  to  allow  Indians  to 
be  carried  from  South  Carolina,  175 

Morton,  Thomas,  hires  Indians,  293 

Moscoso,  leader  after  Solo's  death,  56; 
treatment  of  slaves,  56 

Moseley,  Captain,  captured  Indians,  125 

Mountgomry,  Sir  Robert,  advocates  use 
of  indentured  white  servants,  289 

Mutilation,  punishment,  246    1.  fr  2 

Nairn,  Captain,  expedition  of  to  Florida, 

1 20 
Nanticoke,  tribe,  war  of  Maryland  with, 

I32.  133 
Narraganset,  tribe,  Pequot  captives  given 

to,  123;   at  war  with  the  Mohegan, 

138;  campaign  against,  138 
Narragansett,  slaves  in,  no,  275;  hired 

servants  in,  294 


348 


INDEX 


[600 


Nassoni,  tribe,  30 

Natchez,  tribe,  friendly  with  French, 
67;  enslaved  bv  French,  67,  68;  Eng- 
lish traders  purchase  slaves  from,  173; 
enslave  Shawnee,  173 

Natchitoch,  tribe,  30 

Natchitoches,  30,  74;  report  concern- 
ing. 75 

Neau,  pastor  in  New  York,  to  S.  P.  G. 
F.  P.,  268 

Negroes,  use  of  a  cause  for  decline  of 
Indian  slavery,  297,  298 

Newbury,  Indian  slaves  in.  298 

New  England,  Indian  slaves  in,  105, 
117,  187;  free  Indians  in,  283:  In- 
dian slaves  die  of  consumption,  285; 
hired  Indians  in,  293 

New  England  Confederation,  decrees 
slavery  as  punishment  for  Indians, 
206,  207;  provides  f>r  enslavement 
of  Narraganset  captives,  207;  orders 
Indians  seized  for  harboring  runaway 
slaves,  223 

New  Hampshire.  Indian  slaves  in,  ill; 
act  aga  nst  importation  of  Indians,  | 
192-193;  levies  import  duties  on  In- 
dians, 236;  grants  slaves  the  right  to 
life,  255;  finds  Indian  slaves  unsatis- 
factory. 291 

New  Haven,  act  against  exportation  of 
Indians,  189 

New  Jersey,  Indian  slaves  in,  116-117, 
180,  300;  import  duties  on  Indians, 
236;  provides  for  trial  of  slaves,  257; 
remunerates  owners  of  executed  slaves, 
258;  punishments  for  slaves,  261,  262; 
act  concerning  baptism  of  slaves,  271 ; 
regulates  action  of  freedmen,  280; 
regulates  manumission,  282;  inden- 
tured Indians  in,  295 

New  London,  Indian  slaves  in,  300 

New  Mexico,  missions,  60 

New  Netherland,  Indian  slavery  in,  1 12- 

"3 

New  Orleans,  28,  74;  census  of,  91;  re- 
port on,  92 

Newport.  Indians  surrender  at,  129 
New  York,  Indian  slaves  in,  113-115, 
187;  act  to  prevent  importation  of 
Indians,  193;  abuse  of  apprentice- 
ship, 200;  decrees  slavery  as  condition 
of  slave  mothers'  children,  209;  re- 
gards Indian  slaves  as  taxables,  232; 
levies  import  duties  on  Indians,  238— 
240;  forbids  slaves  to  testify  at  trial 
of  whites,  255;  provides  for  trial  of 


slaves,  257;  decrees  that  baptism  does 
not  free  slaves,  272;  regulates  actions 
of  freedmen,  280;  regulates  manumis- 
sion, 282;  free  Indians  in,  284;  regu- 
lates conduct  of  slaves,  290;  inden- 
tured Indians  in,  295;  abolishes  In- 
dian slavery,  317 

New  Yurk  City,  permits  owners  to  hire 
out  slaves,  246;  employs  Indian  slaves 
in  military  operations,  247;  restric- 
tions on  slaves,  260 

Nez  Perec s,  tribe,  33 

Niagara,  articles  of  peace  drawn  up  at, 
247 

North  Carolina,  Indian  slaves  in,  36, 
133,  301;  runaway  Indian  slaves, 
222;  recognizes  Indian  slaves  as 
property,  225,  226;  regards  Indian 
slaves  as  taxat  les,  227;  forbids  mar- 
riage of  whites  and  Indians,  253; 
forbids  slaves  to  testily  in  ccurt,  254; 
punishments  tor  Indian  slaves,  261, 
263,  264;  act  regarding  manumission 
of  slaves,  278;  act  regulating  con- 
duct of  free-imen,  280,  281;  small- 
pox destroys  Indians,  285 

Northwest,  25,  27,  33,  36,  37,  39,  42, 
85;  Indian  slavery  in,  45 

Northwest  Territory,  slavery  in,  33 

Nova  Scotia,  51 

Oakinacke,  tribe,  slavery  among,  46 
Ohio,  29 

Okechobee,  Lake,  1 20 
Oldmixon,  on  number  of  free  Indians 
in  New  York,  284;   in  New  Jersey, 

285 
Old  Town   Creek,    settlement,   Indian 

children  enslaved,  197 
Opechancanough,  chief,  119 
Opinion,    public,     concerning     Indian 

slaveiy,  303 
Ordinance  of  1787,  33 
Oregon  Indians,  slavery  among,  33,  45 
O'Reilly,   proclamation   of    concerning 

slaves,  58 

Ortiz,  Juan,  enslaved,  46 
Osage,  tribe,  28,  31,  32,  73,  75 
Ottawa,  tribe,   27,   28,32,  35,  36,  37; 

area,  66,  70,  80 
Ottogami,  tribe,  38 
Ouacha,  tribe,  75 
Outaouac,  tribe,  32 

Padouca,  tribe.  31,  32,  86 
Palfrey,  estimate  of  number  of  Indians^ 
284 


6oi 


INDEX 


349 


Pamunkey,  119 

Panis,  synonym  for    Indian  slave,   89, 

246 

Paraguay,  67 
Paris,  64,  66,  91 

Pariss,  Reverend,  hires  Indians,  293 
Parliament  of    Great    Britain,  64;    of 

South  Carolina,    partly   in   sympathy 

with    proprietors,     176;    of  Canada, 

abolishes  slavery,  97 
Parris,    Alexander,    receiver  of    South 

Carolina,  202 
Pawnee,  tribe,   28,  31,  33,  73,  75,  99; 

synonym  for  Indian  slave,  32,  64,  93, 

99 

Pavupki,  enslavement  of  Indians  of,  38 

Pekkemeck,  Indians,  conceal  runaway 
slaves,  222 

P^maquid,  160,  161 

Fenn  William,  founder  of  a  "  free  col- 
ony," 115;  letter  to  Susquehanua, 
224 

Pennsylvania,  kidnapping  in,  161;  In- 
dian slaves  imported  from  South 
Carolina,  1 80,  187,  194;  acts  against 
importation  of  Indians,  193-195;  act 
concerning  runaway  slaves,  221;  im- 
port duties  on  Indians,  236;  punish- 
ments for  slaves,  262 

Pensacola,  English  Indians  attack,  171 

Pequot  War,  captives,  enslaved,  109, 1 10, 
123,  124;  ran  away,  218;  agreements 
to  return  ruiaways,  221-222;  unfitted 
for  slaves,  288 

Perier,  governor  of  Louisiana,  enslaves 
Natchez  Indians,  68;  protests  against 
trade  in  Indians,  98 

Peter,  Reverend  Hugh,  desires  Indian 
slave,  310 

Philadelphia,  yearly  meeting,  action  on 
Indian  slavery,  308, 

Pierce,  Captain,  carries  Indian  slaves  to 
the  Bermudas,  124 

Pima,  tribe,  30 

Pirates,  work  of,  163,  205 

Plymouth,  Indian  slaves  in,  109,  125; 
sends  Indians  to  Spain,  12;,  126; 
sentences  Indians  to  slavery  as  pun- 
ishment for  crime,  204:  concerning 
runaway  slaves,  224;  frees  Ind.an 
slaves,  277:  provides  remuneration 
for  slave  owners,  279;  hired  Indians 
in,  293;  apprenticed  Indians  in,  295 

Pollock,  Governor,  negotiates  sale  of 
Indians,  133 


Popham,  Lord,  patron  of  Weymouth, 
155;  given  two  Indians,  156 

Portsmouth,  forbids  holding  Indian 
slaves  in  the  town,  152;  Indian 
slaves  in,  299 

Portugal,  rival  power,  71;  Indians  car- 
ried to,  127 

Potawatami,  tribe,  38 

Powder,  object  of  barter,  27 

Powhatan,  chief,  36;  Indian  freed  by 
Virginia  assembly,  186 

Praying  Indians,  enslaved,  128,  143, 
144:  hired,  293 

Privateers,  bring  prizes  to  New  Amster- 
dam, 163 

Proprietors,  of  Carolina,  grant  pr'vilege 
of  selling  Indians  in  West  Indies,  134, 
174:  jealous  of  Governor  West,  134; 
power  broken,  135;  forbid  enslave- 
ment of  Indians,  169;  play  double 
game  with  reference  to  Indians,  173; 
jealous  of  colonial  officials,  174:  op- 
pose Indian  slavery,  175:  forbid  Gov- 
ernor Moreton  to  allow  exportation  of 
Indians,  175;  oppose  dealers  in  In- 
dians, 177;  recognize  usefulness  of 
enslaving  Indian  captives.  178;  de- 
nounce Governor  Moore's  Indian 
policy,  179:  sanction  Indian  slavery, 
309:  caution  West  against  appointing 
certain  deputies,  174 

Protection,  to  owners'  property  in  In- 
dian slaves,  221  222 

Providence,  island,  Indians  carried  to, 
124;  town,  Indians  surrender  at,  129 

Pueblo,  tribe,  31 ;   missions,  60 

Puritans,  of  Anne  Arundel  County,  re- 
fuse to  raise  military  levy,  133;  mis- 
sionary scheme  concerning  Indians, 
294 

Quakers,  at  peace  with  Delaware,  115; 
control  government  of  Rhode  Island, 
129:  affect  Indian  slavery,  305;  op- 
pose Indian  slavery,  307-308 

Quebec,  80:   parish  register  of,  88 

Queen  Charlotte  Island,  slave  mart,  45 

Quincy,  slaves  in,  109 

Rancherias,  practically  enslave  Indians, 
61 

Ransom,  44 

Rappahannock,  court,  authorizes  en- 
slavement ol  Indians,  131 

Rauch,  missionary  in  New  York,  162 

Raudot,  Jacques,  intendant,  authorizes 


350 


INDEX 


[602 


Indian  slavery,  63:  issues  ordinance 
against  slaves'  running  away,  99 
Reaping,  occupation  of  Indian  slaves,  37 
Renault,  sent  to  Louisiana,  102 
Rhode  Island,  slaves  in,  no,  128-130, 
187,  236;  limits  bondage  of  Indians 
to  term  of  years,  150;  general  as- 
sembly so  orders,  151;  sends  Indians 
back  to  Plymouth,  151:  Indian  slaves 
brought  to  from  South  Carolina,  180; 
act  against  importing  Indians,  191, 
192:  act  to  prevent  abuse  of  appren- 
ticeship, 199:  sentences  Indians  to 
slavery  as  punishment,  205;  levies 
import  duties  on  Indians,  235:  votes 
to  enlist  Indian  slaves,  248:  religious 
condition  of  slaves  in,  274;  legislation 
shows  Indian  slaves  unsatisfactory, 
292;  indentured  Indians  in,  295; 
prices  of  Indian  slaves  in,  299; 
abolishes  Indian  slavery,  316:  legis- 
lation concerning  Spanish  Indians, 

319 
Ribaut,    instructions    from    Queen    of 

France,  72;   seizes  Indians,  72 
Rowlandson,   Mrs.,  taken   prisoner    by 

Indians,  47 

Roxbury,  Indian  slaves  in,  109 
Rye,   declares   Indian   slaves   taxables, 

232 

Saguenay,  72,  79 

St.  Augustine,  30,  107;  expedition 
against,  119,  120,  135;  Indians  cap- 
tured at,  285 

St.  Denis,  enslaved  by  Indians,  47 

St.  George,  manor,  Indian  slaves  in,  114 

St.  Lawrence,  river,  36 

St.  Miguel,  53 

St.  Peters,  Indian  slaves  in,  271 

St.  'Ihomas,  parish,  107 

Salem,  indentured  servants  in,  295;  In- 
dians slaves  in,  298,  299 

Salishan,  tribe,  33 

San  Diego,  60 

Sandiford,  Ralph,  opposed  to  Indian 
slavery,  306 

San  Domingo,  102 

Sandwich,  Indians  in,  147;  court  sen- 
tences Indians  to  slavery,  203 

Sarrow,  tribe,  sells  Indians  in  Virginia, 
186 

Sassacus,  chief,  123 

Sauk,  tribe,  32 

Savannah,  tiibe,  prey  on  other  tribes, 
sell  captives,  170;  break  treaty,  170; 
reduced  in  numbers,  287 


Savoile,  owns  Indian  slaves,  77 

Sayle,  governor  of  Carolina,  169 

Schuyler,  Arent,  owns  Indian  slaves, 
114,217 

Schuylkill,  river,  29 

Seabrook,  Fort,  Indian  captives  to  be 
sent  to,  138 

Seneca,  tribe,  29;  carry  Indian  slave 
boy  from  .South  Carolina,  224 

Serpent,  Nation  of  the,  75 

Sewall,  Samuel,  intercedes  to  prevent 
enslavement  of  Indians,  204;  admires 
marriage  of  whites  and  Indians,  253; 
on  sale  of  Indians,  298;  opposed  to 
Indian  slavery,  305 

Sharp,  Granville,  opposed  to  Indian 
slavery,  306 

Sharpe,  pastor  in  New  York,  to  S.  P.  G. 
F.  P.,  268 

Shawnee,  tribe,  29;  enslaved,  173 

Shekomeka,  Indian  town  in  New  York, 
162 

Short,  Elizabeth,  purchases  Indian,  270 

Shrimpton,  Mr.,  quarters  Indians  on 
Noddle's  Island,  143 

Shurt,    Abraham,    prevents    union    of 
Massachusetts    and    Maine   Indians, 
160 
!  Smallcomb,  Thomas,  owns  Indian  slaves, 

119;   sells  Indians,  301 
I  Smith,  Captain  John,  36;   expedition  to 
New   England,  158,    William,    owns 
Indian  slaves,  114 
\  Snake,  tribe,  32 

;  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel in  Foreign  Parts,  purpose  of 
American  missionaries,  265;  allows 
missionaries  to  work  among  slaves, 
266;  response  to  missionaries,  268; 
drafts  bill  to  aid  conversion  of  slaves, 
268 

Sonnagars,  tribe,  29 

Sonnontuan,  tribe,  70 

Soto,  31,  37,  49;  lands  in  Florida,  51; 
captures  Indians,  52;  a  slave  owner, 
52;  uses  Indian  slaves  as  guides,  55; 
death,  56 

Southampton,  hired  Indians  in,  204 

South  Carolina,  report  on,  107;  Indian 
slaves  in,  109,  134-136;  sentences 
Indians  to  slavery,  20 1 ;  decrees  con- 
dition of  slavery  for  children  of  slave 
mothers,  207;  recognizes  Indian 
slaves  as  property,  213;  Indian  slaves 
disposed  of  by  will,  217;  act  con- 
cerning runaway  slaves,  221 ;  esteems 


6o3] 


INDEX 


351 


slaves  as  real  property,  226;  as  tax- 
ables,  232;  levits  import  duties  on 
Indians,  234;  levies  export  duties  on 
Indians,  240;  permits  owners  to  hire 
out  slaves,  246;  employs  slaves  in 
military  operations,  247,  248;  re- 
wards Tuscarora  for  military  service 
by  gi'ts  of  Indian  slaves,  240;  per- 
mits slaves  to  testify,  254 ;  remunerat  es 
owners  of  executed  slaves,  258;  averse 
to  slaves  being  church  members,  269: 
directions  to  traders,  276;  allows 
Indian  slaves  to  prove  right  to  free- 
dom, 277:  act  regulating  freedmen, 
280;  small  pox  destroys  Indians,  281; ; 
declares  Indian  slaves  of  less  value 
than  negroes,  302;  abolishes  Indian 
slavery,  315 

South  Kingston,  slaves  in,  no 
Southold,  Indian  apprentices  in,  295 
Sowing,  employment  of  Indian  slaves, 

37 

Spain,  Indians  carried  to,  51,  125,  126, 
158;  rival  power,  71 

Spanish  Indians,  in  New  York,  163;  in 
New  England,  164;  in  Pennsylvania, 
164:  undesirable,  290 

Spanish  Main,  48 

Spanish  .succession,  war  of,  119,  172 

Spiritual  welfare  of  Indians,  59 

Spotswood,  Governor,  to  Lord  Dart- 
mouth, 198 

Sprague,  Captain,  carries  Indian  slaves 
to  Spain,  125 

Stanton,  Captain  John,  owns  Indian 
slaves,  130 

Status,  slavery,  servitude,  212-216 

Statutory  recognition  of  slavery,  212 

Steevens,  missionary  of  S.  P.  G.  F.  P., 
183 

Stono,  t  ibe,  war  with,  106,  119;  cap- 
tives enslaved,  119,  134 

Stoughton,  Captain,  requests  Indian 
slave,  210 

Susquehanna,  tribe,  carry  away  Indian 
slaves  from  New  York,  224;  war  with 
Yoamaco,  286 

Swamp  Hght,  captives  enslaved,  123 

Swanzey,  Indian  slave  in,  145 

Taensa,  tribe,  Chickasaw  obtain  slaves 

from,  173 

Taiguragui,  chief,  71 
Talapoosa,   tribe,   preys   on    tribes   for 

captives  to  sell,  171 
Talbot,   attorney-general    of    England, 


decides  that   baptism  does  not   free 
slaves,  275 

Talc»t,  Major   John,   treasurer  of  Con- 
necticut, 130 
Tampa  Bay,  51 
Tartary,  27 

Terre  Haute,  slavery  in,  92 
|  Terrisse,  81 
I  Thacher,  Reverend  Peter,  owns  Indian 

slaves,  251,  298 

Thomas,  Samuel,  to  S.  P.  G.  F.  P.,  266 
Thompson,  Indians,  slavery  among,  46 
Tiguex,  captured  by  Coronado,  53,  56 
Timucua,  tribe,  enslaved  by  English,  121 
Tisquantum,  captured  by  Captain  Hunt, 

Tlingit,  tribe,  33 

Tonti,  28,  38;  urges  Illinois  against 
Iroquois,  69;  advocates  enslavement 
of  Indians,  76;  given  Indians,  81 

Toungletat,  Indian  slavery  among,  45 

Trade,  leading  employment  of  hrench- 
American  colonists,  87;  means  of  ob- 
taining Indian  slaves,  168-195 

Treasurer,  of  colony,  authorized  to  sell 
Indians,  139,  140,  148 

Treatment,  of  Indian  slaves,  39-42,  55- 
57,  86-92,  250  282;  not  different 
from  treatment  of  negroes,  250 

Tusayan.  tribe,  enslave  Indians  of 
Payupki,  38 

Tuscarora,  war,  captives  enslaved,  121, 
122,  133;  cause  of,  197;  Indians, 
runaway,  222 

Uncas,  chief,  exchanges  land  for  Indian 
slave,  277 

United  Colonies  of  New  England, 
authorize  enslavement  of  Indians, 
138;  recognize  property  rights  in  In- 
dian slaves,  222;  letter  to  Governor 
Kieft,  223 

Ute,  tribe,  slavery  among,  45,  46 

Vancouver  Island,  Indian  slavery  on,  45 
Verrazano,  kidnaps  Indians,  71 
Vesey,    Reverend,   on  Indian   slaves  in 

New  York,  114 
Vincennes,    church     records     of,     89; 

slavery  at,  92 

Virginia,  Indian  slaves  in,  30,  108,  118, 
119,  127,  180,  187,  271,  301;  assem- 
bly authorizes  transportation  and  sale 
of  Indians,  131-132;  act  against  kid- 
napping Indians,  166;  early  trade 
with  Indians,  185;  policy  regarding 


352 

enslavement  of  Indians,  185;  act 
against  enslavement  of  Indian  chil- 
dren, 198;  sentences  Indians  to 
slavery,  202-203;  act  concerning  run- 
away slaves,  221;  regards  Indian 
slaves  as  taxables,  227-230;  levies 
import  duties  on,  235,  237;  forbids 
marriage  of  free  whites  and  Indian 
slaves,  252;  decrees  child  of  an  In- 
dian to  be  a  mulatto,  254;  forbids 
slaves  to  testify  in  court  except  at 
tiial  of  slaves,  255;  provides  special 
courts  for  trial  of  slaves,  256;  votes 
to  educate  Indian  servants,  270;  leg- 
ally designates  slaves  in  1670,  270; 
repeals  act  of  1670,  272;  requires 
registration  of  slaves,  271;  act  con- 
cerning manumission  of  slaves,  278, 
279;  regulates  actions  of  freedmen, 
280;  decrease  in  number  of  Indians, 
286;  requires  license  to  hire  Indians, 
292;  indentured  Indians  in,  295; 
abolishes  Indian  slavery,  312;  su- 
preme court  decision  regarding  abo- 
lition of  Indian  slavery,  313 

Voyageurs,  64 

\ 

Waineoke,  King  of,  sells  Indian  to 
Elizabeth  Short,  270,  301 

Wakashan,  tribe,  33 

Waldron,  Major,  seizes  Indians  at 
Cocheco,  147;  issues  warrants  for 
seizure  of  Indians,  161;  indicted  for 
stealing  and  selling  Indians,  161 

Wallawalla,  river,  33 

Wampum,  35,  37 

Waniah,  tribe,  at  war  with  South  Caro- 
lina, 177 

Washington,  General  George,  proposes 
to  enlist  slaves,  248 

West,  Governor,  sells  Indians  as  slaves, 
119,  134;  removed  from  office  by 


INDEX 


[604 


proprietors,  174;  cautioned  by  pro- 
prietors against  appointing  certain 
deputies,  174 

West    Indies,   78;   Indians    carried   to, 
68,97,  i'9>  124,  127,  I33-I34»  169, 
180,  185,  202,  302 
West  Virginia,  slave  courts  in,  256 
Western  Company,  chaiter  of,  101;  im- 
ports negroes  into  Louisiana,  101 
Westo,  tribe,  sell  captives  to  English, 
170:   break  treaty,  170;   sell  Indians 
to  Carolina  planters,  175;   reduced  in 
numbers,  287 

Wethersfield,  Indian  slave  in,  300 
Wetmore,  on  opposition  of   owners  to 

baptism  of  slaves,  273 
Weymouth,  kidnrps  Indians,  155 
Whipping,  punishment,  262-263 
\\illard,     Lieutenant,     agreement     of 

Massachusetts  with,  222 
Williams,    Roger,    on    Indian    slavery, 

304:   requests  an  Indian  slave,  310 
Winthrop,  John,  owns  an  Indian  slave, 
216;  on  number  of  free  Indians,  248; 
obtains  licenses  to   employ   Indians, 
292 
Wisconsin,  27,  32,  38,  94 

Yamasee,  tribe,  30 
Yanan,  t  ibe,  33 
Yaqui,  tribe,  enslaved,  54 
Yazoo,  tribe,  enslave  Shawnee,  173 
Yeamans,  Sir  John,  chosen  by  proprie- 
tors to   succeed    West  as  Governor, 

r74 
Yoamaco,  tribe,  war  with  Susquehanna, 

286 
Yorke,  solicitor-general  of  England,  de 

ciJes  that  baptism  does  not  free  slaves 

275 
Yuma,  tribe,  30 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PRIVILEGES  AND  IMMUNITIES  OF  CITIZENS  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES — Arnold  Johnson  Lien,  Ph.  D i 

THE  SUPREME  COURT  AND  UNCONSTITUTIONAL  LEGISLATION — 
Elaine  Free  Moore,  Ph.  D 95 

INDIAN  SLAVERY  IN  COLONIAL  TIMES  WITHIN  THE  PRESENT 
LIMITS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES — Almon  Wheeler  Lauber, 
Ph.D 253 


iw  tto  ®it»  of 


The  University  includes  the  following  : 

Columbia  College,  founded  in  1754,  and  Barnard  College,  founded  in 

1889,  offering  to  men  and  women,  respectively,  programmes  of  study 

which  may  be  begun  either  in  September  or  February  and  which  lead 

normally  in  from  three  to  four  years  to  the  degrees  of  Bachelor  of  Arts 

and  Bachelor  of  Science.    The  programme  of  study  in  Columbia  College 

makes  it  possible  for  a  well  qualified  student  to  satisfy  the  requirements 

for  both  the  bachelor's  degree  in  arts  or  science  and  a  professional  degree 

in  law,  medicine,  technology  or  education  in  six,  five  and  a  half  or  five 

years  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  Faculties  of  Political  Science,  Philosophy  and  Pure   Science, 

offering  advanced  programmes  of  study  and  investigation  leading  to  the 

degrees  of  Master  of  Arts  and  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 
The  professional  schools  of 

Law,  established  in  1858,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the 
degree  of  Bachelor  of  Laws. 

Medicine.  The  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  established  in  1807, 
offering  four-year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Medi- 
cine. 

Mines,  founded  in  1863,  offering  courses  of  four  years  leading  to  degrees 
in  Mining,  Engineering  and  in  Metallurgy. 

Chemistry  and  Engineering,  set  apart  from  School  of  Mines  in  1896,  offer- 
ing four-year  courses  leading  to  degrees  in  Chemistry  and  in  Civil, 
Electrical,  Mechanical  and  Chemical  Engineering. 

Teachers  College,  founded  in  1888,  offering  in  its  School  of  Education 
courses  in  the  history  and  philosophy  of  education  and  the  theory 
and  practice  of  teaching,  leading  to  appropriate  diplomas  and  the 
degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Education  ;  and  in  its  School  of 
Practical  Arts  founded  in  1912,  courses  in  household  and  industrial 
arts,  fine  arts,  music,  and  physical  training  leading  to  the  degree  of 
Bachelor  of  Science  in  Practical  Arts.  All  the  courses  in  Teachers 
College  are  open  to  men  and  women. 

Fine  Arts,  offering  a  programme  of  indeterminate  length  leading  to  a 
certificate  or  a  degree  in  Architecture,  and  a  programme  in  Music, 
for  which  suitable  academic  recognition  will  be  given. 

Journalism,  founded  in  1912,  offering  a  four-year  course  in  Journalism 
leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Literature. 

Pharmacy.    The  New  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  founded  in  1831,  offer- 

ing courses  of  two  and  three  years  leading  to  appropriate  certifi- 

cates and  degrees. 

In  the  Summer  Session  the  University  offers  courses  giving  both  gen- 

eral and  professional  training  which  may  be  taken  either  with  or  withoi 

regard  to  an  academic  degree  or  diploma. 

Through  its  system  of  Extension  Teaching  the  University  offers 

many  courses  of  study  to  persons  unable  otherwise  to  receive  academic 

training. 

The  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  provides  lectures,  concerts,  read- 

ings and  recitals—  approximately  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  number—  in  a 

single  season. 

In  September,  1905,  two  Residence  Halls  were  opened  with  accom- 

modations for  live  hundred  men.    There  are  also  residence  halls  for 

women. 

The  price  of  the  University  Catalogue  is  twenty-five  cents  postpaid. 

Detailed  information  regarding  the  work  in  any  department  will  be  fur- 

nished without  charge  upon  application  to  the  Secretary  of  Columbia 

University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


UNDER  THE   DIRECTION   OF  THE 

DEPARTMENTS   OF   HISTORY,  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 
AND   POLITICAL  SCIENCE. 


Recent  studies  in  American  Trade  Unionism,  by  members  of  the 
Economic  Seminary  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  have  been  published 
as  follows : 

The  Finances  of  American  Trade  Unions.     By  A.  M.  SAKOLSKI.     Series 

XXIV  (1906)  Nos.  3-4.     Paper,  75  cents. 

National  Labor  Federations  in  the  United  States.     By  WILLIAM  KIRK. 
Series  XXIV  (1906)  Nos.  9-10.     Paper,  75  cents. 

Apprenticeship  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  J.  M.  MOTLEY.    Series 

XXV  (1907)  Nos.  11-12.     Paper,  50  cents. 

Beneficiary  Features  of  American  Trade  Unions.     By  J.  B.  KENNEDY. 
Series  XXVI  (1908)  Nos.  11-12.    Paper,  50  cents. 

The  Trade-Union  Label.     By  E.  R.  SPEDDEN.     Series  XXVIII  (1910) 
No.  2.     Paper  50  cents ;  cloth  75  cents. 

The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions.       By  F.  T.  STOCKTON. 
Series  XXIX  (1911)  No.  3.     Paper  $1.00;  cloth  $1.25. 

The  Standard  Rate  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  D.   A.   McCABE. 
Series  XXX  (1912)  No.  2.     Paper  $1.25;  cloth  $1.50. 

Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions.     By  F.  E.  WOLFE.     Series  XXX 
(1912)  No.  3.     Paper  $1.00;  cloth  $1.25. 

The  Government  of  American  Trade  Unions.    By  T.  W.  GLOCKER.     Series 
XXXI  (1913)  No.  2.     Paper  $1.00;  cloth  $1.25. 

Bibliography  of  American  Trade-Union  Publications.     Edited  by  GEORGE 
E.  BARNETT.     Second  edition.     1907.     Paper  75  cents. 


The  cost  of  annual  subscription  to  the  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 
STUDIES  is  $3.00.  Subscriptions  and  orders  for  single  monographs  should 
be  sent  to 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND 


THE  QUARTERLY  aims  to  represent  faithfully  all  the  varied  interests 
of  the  University.  It  publishes  historical  and  biographical  articles  of 
interest  to  Columbia  men,  shows  the  development  of  the  institution  in 
every  direction,  records  all  official  action,  describes  the  work  of  teachers 
and  students  in  the  various  departments,  reports  the  more  important 
incidents  of  undergraduate  life,  notes  the  successes  of  alumni  in  all 
fields  of  activity,  and  furnishes  an  opportunity  for  the  presentation  and 
discussion  of  University  problems. 

THE  QUARTERLY  is  issued  in  December,  March,  June  and  September, 
each  volume  beginning  with  the  December  number.  Annual  subscrip- 
tion, one  dollar  ;  single  number,  thirty  cents.  600  pages  per  volume. 
All  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the  COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY  QUARTERLY,  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  or  at  Columbia 
University,  New  York  City. 

Ten  Important  Volumes 

SOCIAL  EVOLUTION  AND  POLITICAL  THEORY.  By  LEONARD  T.  HOB- 
HOUSE.  Professor  of  Sociology  in  the  University  of  London.  Pp.  ix  -f  218. 

CONSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.      By 

WOODROW  WILSON,  LL.D.,  late  President  of  Princeton  University.     Pp.  vii 
+  236. 

THE  BUSINESS  OF  CONGRESS.  By  Hon.  SAMUEL  W.  McCALL,  late  Member 
of  Congress  from  Massachusetts.  Pp.  vii  -[-215. 

THE  COST  OP  OUR  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT.  A  Study  in  Political 
Pathology.  By  HENRY  JONES  FORD,  Professor  of  Politics  in  Princeton  Uni- 
versity. Pp.  xv  -f  147. 

POLITICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT.  By  ALBERT 
SHAW,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  the  Review  of  Reviews.  Pp.  vii  -+-  268. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS  FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CITIZEN.  By  JEREMIAH  W.  JENKS,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Gov- 
ernment and  Public  Administration  in  New  York  University.  Pp.  xviii  -j-  187. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MODERN  STATE.  By  DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  LL.D.,  late  American  Ambas- 
sador to  Germany.  Pp.  ix  -f-  214. 

THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  JOHN  CHIPMAN  GRAY, 
LL.D.,  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University.  Pp.  xii  -}-  332. 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  FRED- 
ERICK POLLOCK,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  Barrister- at-Law ; 
Honorary  Fellow  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford.  Pp.  vii-f  141. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  His  Permanent  Influence  on  American  Institutions. 
By  Hon.  JOHN  SHARP  WILLIAMS,  United  States  Senator  from  Mississippi. 
Pp-  «  +  330- 

Uniformly  bound,  12mo,  cloth.    Each,  $1.50  net. 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LEMOKE  &  BUEOHNER,  Agents 
30-32  West  Twenty-Seventh  Street,  New  York  City 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 

WORKS  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.A.,  Hon.  Ph.D.  Berlin 

Professor  of  Commerce  in  the  University  of  Birmingham ; 
formerly  Professor  at  Harvard  University. 

BRITISH  DOMINIONS 

Their  Present  Commercial  and  Industrial  Condition. 

A  Series  of  General  Reviews  for  Business  Men  and  Students. 
Edited  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY.     Crown  8vo.    $1.80,  net. 

THE  BRITISH  DOMINIONS.  By  the  Right  Hon.  Alfred  Lyttleton,  M.P., 
K.C.,  late  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies. 

AUSTRALIA.  By  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  George  Reid,  K.C.M.G.,  High  Com- 
missioner of  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia. 

AUSTRALIA.  By  Sir  Albert  Spicer,  Bart,  M.P.,  Chairman  of  the  Congress 
of  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  the  Empire  at  Sydney,  1909. 

NEW  ZEALAND.  By  the  Hon.  William  Pember  Reeves,  Director  of  the 
London  School  of  Economics  ;  late  High  Commissioner  of  New  Zealand. 

SOUTH  AFRICA.  By  the  Hon.  Sir  Walter  Hely-Hutchinson,  G.C.M.G., 
Late  Governor  of  Cape  Colony ;  formerly  Governor  of  Natal. 

SOUTH  AFRICA.  By  Henry  Birchenough,  C.M.G.,  Director  of  the  British 
South  Africa  Company ;  late  Board  of  Trade  Commissioner  to  South  Africa. 

THE  WEST  INDIES.  By  Sir  Daniel  Morris,  K.C.M.G.,  D.  Sc.,  late  Im- 
perial Commissioner  of  Agriculture  for  the  West  Indies. 

CANADA.  By  W.  L.  Griffith,  Secretary  to  the  High  Commissioner  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada. 

The  Lectures  contained  in  this  book  were  delivered 
before  the  University  of  Birmingham   in   zgio-ii. 

THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES.  A  Study  on  the  Coal  and  Iron 
Industries  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  With  Four  Maps. 
8vo.,  $4.00,  net. 

BRITISH  INDUSTRIES.  A  Series  of  General  Reviews  for  Business 
Men  and  Students.  By  various  authors.  Edited  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY. 
Crown  8vo.,  $1.80,  net. 

THE  SCOTTISH  STAPLE  AT  VEERE.  A  Study  in  the  Economic 
History  of  Scotland.  By  JOHN  DAVIDSON,  M.A.,  D.Phil.  (Edin.), 
and  ALEXANDER  GRAY,  M.A.  With  13  Illustrations.  $4.50,  net. 

THE    TRUST    MOVEMENT    IN    BRITISH    INDUSTRY.     A 

Study  of  Business  Organisation.  By  HENRY  W.  MACROSTY,  B.A.  8vo. 
$2.50,  net. 

THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     By 

ERNEST  LUDLOW  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economics  in 
the  University  of  Illinois.  With  26  Maps  and  95  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo.,  $1.75. 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth  Avenue  and  3Oth  Street,  New  York. 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 


Day— A  History  of  Commerce.  By  CLIVE  DAY,  Ph.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economic  History  in  Yale  University.  With  34  Maps.  639 
pages.  $2.00. 

This  book  contains  the  essentials  of  commercial  progress ;  and  development  with  special 
attention  to  the  relative  proportion  of  subjects.  During  the  nineteenth  century,  the  appor- 
tionment of  space  to  the  different  countries  has  been  regulated  by  their  respective  commer- 
cial importance.  The  first  two  chapters  on  the  United  States  are  designed  to  serve  both  as 
a  summary  of  colonial  history  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  commercial  development  of  the 
national  period.  Later  chapters  aim  to  include  the  essentials  of  our  commercial  progress. 

Follett— The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. By  M.  P.  FOLLETT.  With  an  Introduction  by  ALBERT  BUSH- 
NELL  HART,  LL.D.  Crown  8vo,  with  Appendices  and  Index.  $1.75. 

"In  few  recent  works  belonging  to  the  field  of  politics  and  history  do  we  find  so  much  evi- 
dence of  the  conditions  which  are  essential  to  the  making  of  a  good  book — a  well-chosen 
theme,  grasp  of  subject,  mastery  of  material,  patient,  long-continued,  wisely  directed  labor, 
good  sense  and  good  taste  .  .  .  the  wonder  is  that  in  a  region  so  new  the  author  should  have 
succeeded  in  exploring  so  far  and  so  well.  The  work  has  placed  every  student  of  politics 
and  political  history  under  heavy  obligations." — Political  Science  Quarterly. 

Cadbury— Experiments  In  Industrial  Organization. 

By  EDWARD  CADBURY,  part  author  of  "Women's  Work  and  Wages" 
and  "  Sweating."  With  a  Preface  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.  A.,  Professor 
of  Commerce  in  the  University  of  Birmingham.  Crown  8vo.  $l.6o  net. 

Robinson — Cuba  and  the  Intervention.  By  ALBERT  S* 
ROBINSON  ("A.  S.  R.").  Crown  8vo.  359  pages.  $1.80;  by  mail,  $1.92 

Bipley— Railroads :  Vol.  I,  Rates  and  Regulation.    By 

WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Ph.D.,  Nathaniel  Ropes  Professor  of  Economics  in 
Harvard  University,  author  of  "Railway  Problems,"  etc.  With  41  Maps  and 
Diagrams.  Small  8vo.  Pp.  xviit-f-659.  $3.00  net;  by  mail,  $3.20. 

Rowe— United  States  and  Porto  Rico.  With  Special  Refer- 
ence to  the  Problems  arising  out  of  our  contact  with  the  Spanish  American 
Civilization.  By  LEO  S.  ROWE,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Science  in 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Chairman  of  the  Porto  Rican  Commission 
(1901-1902),  etc.  Crown  8vo.  280  pages.  $1.30  net;  by  mail,  $1.40 

Willoughby— Political  Theories  of  the  Ancient  World. 

By  WESTEL  W.  WILLOUGHBY,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Political 
Science  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Author  of  "The  Nature  of 
the  State,"  "Social  Justice,"  "The  Rights  and  Duties  of  American  Citi- 
ztnship,"  etc.  Crown,  8vo.  308  pages.  $2.00. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth  Avenue  and  SOth  Street,  New  York. 


JUST  PUBLISHED 

British  Social  Politics 

By  CARLTON   HAYES 

Columbia  University 

58O  pages,        -  $1.75 

Within  the  past  seven  years  there  has  been  in  Great  Britain  a  constant 
succession  of  important  acts:  workmen's  compensation,  trade  disputes, 
labor  exchanges,  old-age  pensions,  the  Lloyd  George  Budget,  the  defeat 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  national  workmen's  insurance — a  veritable  revolu- 
tion in  contemporary  politics. 

Each  important  act  of  this  kind  is  here  treated  in  a  special  chapter, 
its  historical  setting  explained  by  the  editor,  the  text  of  the  act  given, 
and  extracts  inserted  from  some  of  the  liveliest  speeches  in  Parliament 
illustrative  of  the  various  arguments  advanced  both  for  and  against  it. 
To  the  historian,  the  social  worker,  and  the  practical  economist  the  book 
will  prove  invaluable. 


History  as  Past  Ethics 

By  P.  V.  N.  MYERS 
387  pages        -  S1.5O 

Professor  Myers,  in  this  volume,  makes  a  distinct  and  valuable  addi- 
tion to  historical  literature  and  the  historical  viewpoint.  He  treats  history 
in  its  ethical  significance  and  provides  a  detailed  study  of  the  moral  life 
n  all  the  various  stages  of  historic  evolution  from  that  of  ancient  Egypt 
to  the  new  social  and  international  conscience  of  the  present  age.  The 
book  is  marked  by  the  sound  scholarship,  the  vivid  and  picturesque  style, 
and  the  ability  to  handle  large  historic  periods  with  a  just  and  discrimi- 
nating sense  of  historical  values  that  have  gained  for  Professor  Myers's 
Histories  an  international  reputation.  It  presents  such  a  fresh  and  illu- 
minating viewpoint  of  historical  movements,  contemporary  as  well  as 
past,  that  it  will  prove  a  valuable  adjunct  to  the  history  library. 


GINN  AND  COMPANY,  Publishers 

BOSTON        NEW  YORK        CHICAGO          LONDON 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

Edited  by  the 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 

VOLUME  1, 1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    398pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  in  Statistics. 

By  WALTER  A.  WILLCOX,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 


9.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  in  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 
Times  to  the  McKinley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  JOHN  DEAN  Goss,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

8.  History  of  Municipal  3L.and  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GEORGE  ASHTON  BLACK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

4.  financial  History  of  Massachusetts^  R  ;  ^^  ^    ^  sold  separately.} 

VOLUME  II,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  page  4.)' 

1.  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village.    ByIsAAcA.HouRwicH,Ph.D.    (Out  of  print.) 

2.  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  in  Comparative  [Legislation. 

By  SAMUEL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  Jr.,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $1.00. 

8*  Special  Assessments :  A  Study  in  Municipal  Finance. 

By  VICTOR  ROSEWATER,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.     Price.  JLCO. 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  *  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies. 

By  CORTLAND  F.  BISHOP,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  GEORGE  L.  BEER,  A.M.    ( Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  Financial  History  of  Virginia.  By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEV,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

a.  *  The  Inheritance  Tax.  By  MAX  WEST,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  £2.00. 

3.  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont.    By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States.          By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
a.  The  Separation  of  Governmental  P-™. 

3.  Municipal  Government  in  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  In  Pennsylvania. 

By  WILLIAM  ROBERT  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.    512pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Commonwealth  Govern- 

ment in  Massachusetts.  By  HARRY  A.  CUSHING,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

2.  *  Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States. 

By  HENRY  CROSBY  EMERY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  VIII,  1896-98.    551pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  CHARLES  ERNEST  CHADSEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  JI.OQ. 
ft.  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Administration. 

By  WILLIAM  CLARENCE  WEBSTER,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 
8.  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  FRANCIS  R.  STARK,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price.  $x.oo. 

4.  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts.     The  Relation  of  Central  to 

Local  Activity.  By  ROBERT  HARVEY  WHITTEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  f, i.oo. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  *  English  ILocal  Government  of  To-day.    A  Study  of  the  Relations  of  Cen- 
tral and  Local  Government.  By  MILO  ROY  MALTBIB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
».  German  Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  JAMES  WT  CROOK,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 
8.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State. 

By  JOHN  ARCHIBALD  FAZRLIB,  Ph.D.    Price.  tvao. 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    500pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

J>y  rRED  b.  HALL,  1  n.L).     Frice,  fl.OO. 

2  *  Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  the  Union. 

By  FRANK  GREENE  BATES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  In  the  American  Common- 
wealths. By  CLEMENT  MOORS  LACEY  SITES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  ADNA  FERRIN  WEBER,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  WILLIAM  MAXWELL  BURKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

2.  Colonial  Immigration  Laws.  By  EDWARD  EMBERSON  PROPER,  A.M.    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  History  of  Military  Pension  I«^e 


Price,  ^.oo. 
4.  History  of  the  Theory  of  B^mi^ 

VOLUME  XIII,  1901.    570  pages.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Legal  Property  Relations,  of  Married  Parties. 

By  ISIDOR  LOEB,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

».  Political  Natlvlsm  in  New  York  State.         By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
3.  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.  By  EDWIN  C.  WOOLLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pages.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Loyalism  in  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  ALEXANDER  CLARENCE  FLICK,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

8.  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  ALLAN  H.  WILLHTT,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.50. 

3.  The  Eastern  Question  :  A  Study  in  Diplomacy. 

By  STEPHEN  P.  H.  DUGGAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi.oo. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50  ;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

Crime  in  Its  Relations  to  Social  Progress.  By  ARTHUR  CLEVELAND  HALL,  Ph.D. 

TOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1*  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  in  Japan. 

By  YETARO  KINOSITA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

£.  The  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  MABEL  HURD  WILLET,  Ph.D      Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio. 

By  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  *  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WILLIAM  A.  RAWLES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.50. 

8.  Principles  of  Justice  in  Taxation.  By  STEPHEN  F.  WESTON,  Ph.D.    Price,  #2.00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  The  Administration  of  Iowa.  By  HAROLD  MARTIN  BOWMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

«.  Turgot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  ROBERT  P.  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Hanover  and  Prussia  1795-18O3.  By  GUY  STANTON  FORD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Josiah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  WALTER  ERNEST  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1,50, 

2.  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Value  in  English  Political 

Economy.  By  ALBERT  C.  WHITAKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  in  New  York. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England. 

By  CHARLES  AUSTIN  BEARD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  A  History  of  Military  Government  in  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of  the 

United  States.  By  DAVID  Y.  THOMAS,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  *Treaties,  their  Making  and  Enforcement. 

By  SAMUEL  B.  CRANDALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

«.  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Block. 

By  THOMAS  JESSE  JONES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

8.  Pre-Malthuslan  Doctrines  of  Population. 

By  CHARLES  E.  STANGELAND,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 


VOLUME  XXII,  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

The  Historical  Development  of  tlie  Poor  Law  of  Connecticut. 

By  EDWARD  W.  CAPEN,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXIII,  1905.    594  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Tlie  Economics  of  Land  Tenure  in  Georgia. 

By  ENOCH  MARVIN  BANKS,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

2.  Mistake  in  Contract.    A  Study  in  Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

By  EDWIN  C.  McKEAG,  Ph.D.  Price,  gi.oo. 

3.  Combination  in  the  Mining  Industry.         By  HENRY  R.  MUSSBY,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.00. 

4.  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Government. 

By  STELLA  KRAMER,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Place  of  Magic  in  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  LYNN  THORNDIKE,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

2.  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodosian  Code. 

By  WILLIAM  K.  BOYD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
8.  *  The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  SEIJI  G.  HISHIDA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  *Munlcipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities.    By  O.  L.  POND,  Ph.D.  (Not  sold  separately.) 

2.  The  Budget  in  the  American  Commonwealths. 

By  EUGENE  E.  AGGER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  CHARLES  C.  WILLIAMSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1907.    559pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Trade  and  Currency  in  Early  Oregon.          By  JAMES  H.  GILBERT,  Ph.D.    Price,  gi.oo. 

2.  Luther's  Table  Talli.  By  PRESERVED  SMITH,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

3.  The  Tobacco  Industry  in  the  United  States. 

By  MEYER  JACOBSTBIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

4.  Social  Democracy  and  Population.  By  ALVAN  A.  TENNEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole.    By  NORRISA.  BRISCO,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation.      By  ABRAHAM  BERGLUND,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  in  Massachusetts. 

By  HAKRY  G.  FRIEDMAN,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVIII,  1907.    564  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 


DeWitt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  in  New  York 

By  HOWARD  LEE  McBAiN,  Ph.  D.     ] 


2.  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

1.  Mi 


Price,  $1.50. 


By  ELMER  I.  MILLER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 
8.  The  Distribution  Of  Ownership.     By  JOSEPH  HARDING  UNDERWOOD,  Ph.D. 


VOLUME  XXIX,  1908.    703  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  Early  New  England  Towns.  By  ANNE  BUSH  MACLBAR,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  WILLIAM  H.  FRY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.    712  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738.  By  EDWIN  P.  TANNER,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXI,  1908.    575  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00.     . 

1.  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  WELD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  Ohio  before  185O.  By  ROBERT  E.  CHADDOCK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Consanguineous  Marriages  in  the  American  Population. 

By  GEORGE  P.  Louis  ARNER,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

4.  Adolphe  Quetelet  as  Statistician.  By  FRANK  H.  HANKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1908.    705  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers.         By  BERTHA  HAVEN  PUTNAM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIII,  1908-1909.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  Factory  Legislation  in  Maine.  By  E.  STAGG  WHITIN,  A.B.    Price,  gi.oo. 

2.  'Psychological  Interpretations  of  Society, 

By  MICHAEL  M.  DAVIS,  JR.,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
8.  *  An  Introduction  to  the  Sources  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

By  CARLTON  HUNTLBY  HAYES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  XXXIV,  1909.    628  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [89]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Development  In  the  Middle  West. 

By  WILLIAM  F.  GEPHART,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
3.  [9O]  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation. 

By  JACOB  SALWYN  SCHAPIRO,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.35. 

8.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  PHILIP  A.  PARSONS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXV,  1909.    568  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [98]  The  Conflict  over  the  Judicial  Powers  In  the  United  States  to  187O. 

By  CHARLES  GROVK  HAINES,  Ph.D.     Price,  #1.50. 
*.  [93]  A  Study  of  the  Population  of  Manhattan vllle. 

By  HOWARD  BROWN  WOOLSTON,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.25. 
3.  [94]  *  Divorce:  A  Study  In  Social  Causation. 

By  JAMBS  P.  LICHTENBERGER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [95]  'Reconstruction  In  Texas.       By  CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL,  Ph.D.     Price  $2.50. 
».  [901  *  The  Transition  In  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Commonwealth. 

By  CHARLES  RAMSDBLL  LINGLEY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i  50. 

VOLUME  XXXVII,  1910.    606  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  In  Local  Freight  Discriminations. 

By  JOHN  MAURICE  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

2.  [98]  Legal  Development  In  Colonial  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  J.  HILKEY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.25. 

3.  [99]  *  Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  HOWARD  W.  ODUM,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXXVIH,  1910.    463  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

Che  Public  Domain  and  Democrac 

B 
2.  [1O1]  Organismic  Theories  of  the  State. 


1.  [1OO1  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  ROBERT  TUDOR  HILL,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ja.oc. 


By  FRANCIS  W.  COKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXIX,  1910-1911.    651  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O2]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  WILLIAM  SMITH  MURRAY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [1O3]  Political  History  of  New  York  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 

War.  By  SIDNEY  DAVID  BRUMMBR,  Ph.  D.     Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O4]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  In  China. 

By  HAWKLING  L.  YEN,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oc. 
8.  [105]  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  GEORGE  H.  PORTER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.75. 

3.  [1OG]  The  Territorial  Basis  of  Government  under  the  State  Constitutions. 

By  ALFRED  ZANTZINGER  REED,  Ph.D.     Price,  £1.75. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[1O7]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  EDGAR  JACOB  FISHER,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLII,  1911.    400pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.00 ;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[1O8]  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Cases. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLIII,  1911.    633pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O9]  "Industrial  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  in  New  York  City. 

By  EDWARD  EWING  PRATT,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

8.  [11O1  Education  and  the  Mores.  By  F.  STUART  CHAPIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  [HI]  Tho  British  Consuls  in  the  Confederacy. 

By  MILLEDGE  L.  BONHAM,  JR.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV,  1911.    745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00 ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

[113  and  113]  The  Economic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  CHEN  HUAN-CHANG,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLVI,  1911-1912.    623pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [114]  The  Ricardian  Socialists.  By  ESTHER  LOWENTHAL,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.00. 

2.  L1161  Ibrahim  Pasha,  Grand  Vizier  of  Suleiman,  the  Magnificent. 

By  HESTER  DONALDSON  JENKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [116]  *The  Labor  Movement  In  France.    A  Study  of  French  Syndicalism. 

By  Louis  LBVINK,  Ph.D.     Price,  {11.50. 

4.  [1 17]  *AHoosler  Village.  BT  NEWELL  LEROY  SIMS,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi. 50. 


VOLUME  XL VII,  1912.    544pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  Tlie  Politics  of  Michigan,  1865-1878. 

BY  HARRIETTS  M.DILLA,  Ph.  D,    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  [119]  *The  United  States  Beet-Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

BY  ROY  G.  BLAKEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XL VIII,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [ISO]  Isidor  of  Seville.  BY  ERNEST  BREHAUT,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $2.0*. 

3.  f!31]  Progress  and  Uniformity  in  Child-Labor  Legislation. 

By  WILLIAM  FIELDING  OGBURN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [122]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  BY  WALTER  PHBLPS  HALL.    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  [123]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Law  of  Corporations. 

BY  ARTHUR  K.  KUHN,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.50. 

3.  [134]  *The  Negro  at  Work  in  New  York  City. 

BY  GEORGE  E.  HAYNES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1912.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [125]  *The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.       BY  YAI  Yus  Tsu,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
3.  [126]  *The  Alien  in  China.  BY  Vi.  KYUIN  WELLINGTON  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price :  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [137]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South. 

BY  LEONARD  S.  BLAKBY,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.    489pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [128]  *Provincial  and  Local  Taxation  in  Canada. 

BY  SOLOMON  VINBBERG,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [129]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  FRANK  HATCH  STRBIGHTOFF,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
3.  [ISO]  *The  Finances  Of  Vermont.  By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.     Price,  Jji.oo. 

VOLUME  LIII,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

1131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  in  Florida.         By  W.  W.  DAVIS,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.    604  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1 .  [132]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  ARNOLD  JOHNSON  LIEN,  Ph.L).     Price,  75  cents. 

3.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  BLAINE  FREE  MOORE,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [134]  *Indian  Slavery  in  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States.  By  ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.0x3. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [135]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

By  HOMER  A.  STEBBINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $4.00. 

3.  [1361    *The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

By  LEON  H.  CANFIELD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


The  price  for  each  separate  monograph  is  for  paper-covered  copies;  separate  monographs  marked*,  can 
be  supplied  bound  in  cloth,  for  50c.  additional*    All  prices  are  net. 


The  set  of  fifty-five  volumes,  covering  monographs  1-136,  is  offered,  bound,  for  $180:  except  that 
Volume  II  can  be  supplied  only  in  part,  and  in  paper  covers,  no.  1  of  that  volume  being  out  of  print. 
Volumes  I,  III,  IV  and  XXV,  can  now  be  supplied  only  in  connection  with  complete  sets. 


For  further  information,  apply  to 

Prof.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Columbia  University, 

or  to  Messrs.  LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  New  York. 
London:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


